Subject: changes for next draft

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 12:49:38 -0800

Hi all,

I've listed the results of our latest conversations. If
anything is incorrect or missing please speak up. I think
we have conclusion on all except for issue "5) Ignore ARP
request from device not on local bus."  I hope to get
issue 5 resolved in the next few days. Issue 5) was
dropped while we were waiting for a response from Peter.

In the meantime, Peter please make the appropriate changes then
publish the next draft once issue 5 is resolved.

Thanks,

-myron

1) Unit_Sw_Version - The result of talking to ADs about this is:
 A) In the IPv4/1394 draft, state that the Unit_Sw_version value for
 IPv4/1394 is this RFC number.
 B) Create a section in the IPv4/1394 ID titled "IANA Considerations".
 The purpose of the "IANA Considerations" section is to request
 the IANA to create a name space, instruct the IANA on how to allocate
 values within a name space, and inform the reader that the name
 space is owned by the IANA. The tone of the text in this section
 should sound as if the IANA has already agreed to the own the name
 space. The IANA reviews draft as part of IETF last call. The IANA
 has veto power over all drafts. Thus, if the IANA disagrees with
 the text in the draft, it will never become an RFC.
 C) value allocation policies in the "IANA Considerations" section state
 the value is the RFC number unless otherwise requested. All requests
 for values other than an RFC number will be forwarded to a list
 of experts for review.
 D) IP/1394 WG members volunteer to be experts for IANA.

2) Signature field previously in the link header is now reserved. In
addition some text will be added in 5.3:

"The recipient of an IP datagram transmitted via more than one 1394 packet
SHALL use both the sender's source_ID (obtained either from the asynchronous
packet header or the GASP header) and dgl to identify all the link fragments
from a single datagram."

Also, any remaining references to signature in the draft would be edited
appropriately to refer to source_ID.

3) Somewhere in sections describing MCAP, the following text will be added:

"Within an MCAP message domain, the owner of a channel mapping is identified
by the source_ID field in the GASP header of an MCAP advertisement. The
owner
is the node with the largest physical ID, the least significant six bits of
source_ID."

4) 48 bit offset is removed from the unit directory.

5) Ignore ARP request from device not on local bus. No closure on this
point.
We stopped the conversation waiting for input from Peter. For now, the text
remains the same. Here is Kenji's last comment:
"As we discussed earlier, I think we should add following rule,
  The (bridge unaware) recipient SHALL ignore ARP request and response
  from remote bus (with different source_bus_ID).
because we don't know how long the (virtual) node_ID is valid (limbo time)
yet.

As you know, this is a partial solution.
If bridge un-aware node ignores ARP packets from remote bus, it can not
send any unicast (Async Write) packets.
But bridge un-aware nodes will NOT harm other nodes."