Subject: [DNA] Confirming consensus calls performed in the dna meeting @ IETF 71

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:16:41 -0400

Hi Folks,
   I would like to verify the consensus calls performed in the dna wg 
meeting.

Adoption of draft-krishnan-dna-simple as wg item:
Yes: 15
No: 0

Way forward with Complete DNA:
Publish as Informational (remove code point requirements): 2
Publish as Historic(no more work): 0
Complete current PS work and improve to publish as Experimental: 2
Let it die: 3

Work on dna tentative in dna wg:
Yes: 7
No: 0

Please send your response to the ML to be counted in. This confirmation 
period will continue until 26th March 2008 AOE.

Cheers
Suresh & Greg

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:03:25 -0700

I confirm both of the WG consensus call results below.

> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:16:41 -0400
> From: [email-masked]
> Subject: [DNA] Confirming consensus calls performed in the dna meeting @ IETF 71
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> 
> Hi Folks,

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:58:06 -0700

I am curious about the state of addresses at various points in the DNAv6 process. This includes addresses undergoing reachability testing, as as link scope addresses which may be used as the source address for NS.

For example, is the address undergoing reachability marked as "Optimistic",  "Deprecated" or "Preferred"?  We discussed using the link-scope address as the source address for the NS, but this seems to imply that it is not in the "Optimistic" state.  So what state is it in?

I ask because an address undergoing reachability testing has presumably previously completed DAD, so the chance of a conflict is lower, even if it would otherwise not qualify for "optimistic" status (e.g. manually assigned).  However, a link scope address may have a higher conflict probability, since its uniqueness may have only been tested on another link, not on the link it is currently on.  So I am curious whether DAD (or optimistic DAD) needs to be done on the link-scope address,  and what delays this may introduce.

I'd also like to see a section on packet formats (e.g. source addresses, use of SLLAO, unicast/multicast dest addresses) for NS & RS packets.

---

From: Sathya Narayanan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:40:50 -0800

[I am not sure if I am sending a similar email twice - my previous email 
seems to have disappeared]

I am surprised to see that the group wants to discard all the effort 
that went in to developing the complete DNA solution - I understand that 
we don't see the need for a complex solution at this point in time -I 
support the decision to create a simple solution and not spend more 
effort on the complete DNA solution. But, totally discarding it seems 
like throwing the baby with the bath water to me (if not the baby, it is 
at least throwing baby toys with the bath water). I think with minimum 
effort we can publish the complete DNA solution as an Informational or 
as Experimental for future reference - assuming that this work will 
never be useful in the future seems extreme to me. I will be happy to do 
the work needed to see the document through.

So, I vote to publish the complete DNA solution as Informational or 
Experimental.

best
Sathya

Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Please send your response to the ML to be counted in. This 
> confirmation period will continue until 26th March 2008 AOE.
>
> Cheers
> Suresh & Greg

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:00:34 +0100

>    I would like to verify the consensus calls performed in the dna wg

Hi Suresh,

> Adoption of draft-krishnan-dna-simple as wg item:

Yes.

> Complete current PS work and improve to publish as Experimental: 2

Publish as Informational (remove code point requirements).

Reason: if we publish it as experimental, or informational with the code 
points there's risk of confusing people outside the IETF, I think -- 
they might well have no idea what's the difference between 
Experimental, Informational, Standard Track.

Let it die seems sad and a bad idea. There are good ideas in this 
draft/solution and they should survive the WG, I think. It would avoid 
people reinventing the wheel later, and it's good to remember that RFC 
means request for comments. Removing codepoints insure that nobody can 
implement straight from the RFC and think they have implemented *The* 
IETF's DNA. Not much is lost by removing the codepoints since if the 
IETF want to standardize the complete DNA in 5 years, they will just 
have to put them back :)

--julien

---

From: Genadi Velev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:21:48 +0100

Hi Suresh,

Yes.

> Complete current PS work and improve to publish as Experimental: 2

I support to publish the work  (no strong opinion whether it should be
informational, historic or BCP). 

> Work on dna tentative in dna wg:

No opinion (depends on the need of the Tentative option in Simple DNA).

Genadi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> Suresh Krishnan
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:17 PM
> To: Dna
> Cc: Jari Arkko
> confirmation 

Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH
63225 Langen, Hessen, Germany
Reg: AG Offenbach (Hessen) HRB 33974
Managing Director: Thomas Micke

..............................................................................
Confidentiality Notice
The information contained in this Email, and any attachments, is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, store, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. Any views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the company.

If you receive this Email by mistake, please advise the sender by using the reply facility in your Email software and then delete it.
.............................................................................