Subject: [Pana] [issue138]: Requirement for one hop away relation to PAA discovery

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:06:15 +0200

Hi all,

http://danforsberg.info:8080/pana-issues/issue138

I also recommend relaxing the constraint of PAA one-hop-away from
PaC. This relaxation would make PANA more general and acceptable for
wider use (i.e. the applicability is better).

Supporting PAA discovery for only PAAs that are on the link in the
specification is ok, though.

I can propose some text if needed.

Br,
- Dan

_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:18:40 -0800

Basavaraj and I discussed this and here's our recommendation.

The current protocol design is based on the charter and protocol
requirements (a framework). Our #1 objective is expedited
standardization of PANA within this framework. We shall stay away from
deviations that are likely to cause unnecessary delay to this process,
especially this late in the game.

Having said that, there is a value in being able to run multi-hop PANA.
The question is, can we attain that value with minimum impact on the
protocol and its standardization. 

We need to assess the cost of relaxing the 1-hop requirement on the
protocol design and the process (timeline). Than we can decide whether
we consider this change before pushing the protocol design to IESG, or
save it for later.

WG needs to come up with an analysis that enumerates the changes
required to the protocol, and their impact (security, deployment, etc.).
Dan, can you please drive this discussion on the PANA ML (i.e., no
design team) and produce a summary (a short write-up)?

Couple important points:
- This activity (analysis) should take place in parallel with the
current work. No holding up the documents or anything like that.
- In fact, we should finish this in one week! If it takes longer than
that, that's an indication that the changes may not be that trivial. 
- We'll only be discussing the multi-hop issue. This is not a free
ticket for revising any other requirement. 
- The default is we stick to the current framework and move on. Let's
not get too excited about multi-hop PANA and drag this too long ;-)

PANA WG Chairs

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:45:49 -0800

(let's not confuse this issue with relaxing the 1hop requirement)

The PANA spec is built around the 1-hop requirement as it is what was
agreed and documented in the PANA requirements I-D. To me it does not
make sense to explain the rationale behind this "requirement" in the
"solution specification". Solution specification simply points to
requirements document and gets done with it. Requirements I-D would have
been the right place for that.

Hence, my recommendation is to reject this issue. 

Alper

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:39:49 -0500

I agree with Alper on rejecting this issue.

Yoshihiro Ohba