Subject: [DNA] Reminder: WG LC on draft-ietf-dna-goals-01.txt is running

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:11:26 +0300

This is a reminder that the WG LC on draft-ietf-dna-goals-01.txt
is running and ends on next Monday, Sep 27th.  Please do read
the draft, and send your comments to the ML, even if it is
"I read it and I think it is good".

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dna-goals-01.txt

--Greg & Pekka, the chairs

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:27:49 -0700

Hello,

This document looks pretty good. I have couple of comments...

   To examine the status of the existing configuration, a host may check
   whether a 'link change' has occurred.  The term 'link' used in this
   document is as defined in RFC 2461 [4].

I think it is OK to talk about "link change" throughout the document.
But the first time it is brought up, I recommend its relation to "subnet
change" should be mentioned. Or, the relation between a link and a
subnet.

There should be an explicit statement about this work being limited to
IPv6, together with a reference to IPv4 work (DNAv4).

   Unlike wired environments, what constitutes wireless link is variable
   in both time and space.  It doesn't have clear boundaries.  This may
   be illustrated by the fact that a host may contact multiple (802.11)
   access points at the same time.

We better clarify what "contact" means. Is it being able to hear the
APs, or establish a link-layer connection with the APs, or something
else?

   Hints come in various forms, and differ in how they indicate a
   possible link change.  They can be link-layer event notifications,

You can put a reference to dna-l2-notifications I-D in here.

  G10 Hosts with multiple interfaces or in particular wireless
      environments may perceive routers reachable on different links.
      DNA schemes should take into consideration the case where a host
      is attached to more than one link at the same time.

I think DNA scheme is run per-interface. If so, we shall state that
somewhere in the document.

Regards,

Alper

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:56:09 +0900

Dear Alper

Thanks for helpful feedback. 

> change" should be mentioned. Or, the relation between a link and a

ok. I made a change as below. 

   To examine the status of the existing configuration, a host may check
   whether a 'link change' has occurred.  The term 'link' used in this
   document is as defined in RFC 2461 [4].  The notion 'link' is not
   identical with the notion 'subnet' as defined in RFC 3753 [7].  For
   example, there may be more than one subnets in a link.

More detailed comparison, I think, would be better done in terminology 
draft. It's my understanding that terminology related issues, such as Jason 
issue, will be treated there. 
 
> IPv6, together with a reference to IPv4 work (DNAv4).

ok. 

I explicitly mentioned 'IPv6 Only' as Pekka's suggested. At the end of 
Introduction, I added

   This draft considered the DNA procedure only from IPv6 point of view,
   unless otherwise explicitly mentioned.  Hence, the term "IP" is to be
   understood to denote IPv6 by default.  For IPv4 case, refer [15].

> APs, or establish a link-layer connection with the APs, or something

Precisely speaking, 

a host may be under the wireless coverage of more than one APs.

Definitely, not multiple link-layer connections because that's not allowed 
in 802.11 standard. I intentionally used the word 'contact' instead of 
'connect with'.  

> You can put a reference to dna-l2-notifications I-D in here.

ok

> somewhere in the document.

Good point. Thanks. I added the following in Introduction.  

   ..........................of its IP configuration, is called Detecting Network
   Attachment (DNA).

   DNA scheme is run per interface because some IP configuration, such
   as IPv6 address, is interface specific.  When a host has multiple
   interfaces, each interface separately check for link change to verify
   each one's IP configuration.
 
The updated draft is available at 

http://www.diffeo.com/drafts/draft-ietf-dna-goals-pre02.txt

Thanks for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:47:36 -0700

Hi JinHyeock,

>    example, there may be more than one subnets in a link.

Also "A host connected to a link may be part of one or more of the
subnets on the link."

> issue, will be treated there.

I'd agree. But where is that I-D, I heard about it but haven't seen it. 

> in 802.11 standard. I intentionally used the word 'contact' instead of

Bernard mentioned that one STA connecting to multiple APs simultaneously
is not prohibited by the spec, and it is feasible. I recommend you
replace "contact" with "be within the coverage are of". This reflects
your intention, and uses common terms. 

>    ..........................of its IP configuration, is called
Detecting
> Network

Thank you.

Alper

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:00:46 +0900

Alper

> Also "A host connected to a link may be part of one or more of the

ok. Then the sentence will be

   ................................................................The
term 'link' used in this
   document is as defined in RFC 2461 [4].  The notion 'link' is not
   identical with the notion 'subnet' as defined in RFC 3753 [7].  For
   example, there may be more than one subnets in a link and a 
   host connected to a link may be part of one or more of the subnets 
   on the link.

> I'd agree. But where is that I-D, I heard about it but haven't seen it.

I saw it. It exists. :-) 
 
> your intention, and uses common terms.

ok. The sentence will be 

        ...... a host may be with in the coverage area of multiple
        (802.11) access points at the same time.

> >    interfaces, each interface separately check for link change to
> >    verify each one's IP configuration.

Pekka is not entirely happy to add the above paragraphs. We exchanged
thoughts and kindly give your opinion on it.  

Best Regards

JinHyeock

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:02:04 +0900

Alper

I saw it. It exists. :-) 

ok. The sentence will be 

Best Regards

JinHyeock

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:00:46 +0900

Alper

I saw it. It exists. :-) 

ok. The sentence will be 

Best Regards

JinHyeock

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:27:16 +0300

>    host connected to a link may be part of one or more of the subnets

Looks good to me.

>         (802.11) access points at the same time.

Looks good to me other than do we need to mention 802.11 here?
If it is true for 802.11, it may be true for other wireless
technologies, too.

> thoughts and kindly give your opinion on it.

Right.  But that discussion now has its own thread.

--Pekka

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:10:47 +0900

Pekka

> >    host connected to a link may be part of one or more of the subnets

Glad to hear that from you. :-)
 
> If it is true for 802.11, it may be true for other wireless

That's right. I guess this is the common property of wireless technologies. 
However, the paragraph is intended to provide a concrete and tangible 
example that will underline my point. So I think it will do more good 
than harm to mention 802.11. Moreover, some wirless technologies 
use the term 'base station', instead of 'access point'. :-) 

Best Regards

JinHyeock

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:50:18 +0900

Dear Pekka, Jim, Alper, Vijay and Erik 
(in chronological order of comments :-)) 

Thanks for valuable feedback during WG LC. I incorporated your 
comments to modify the draft, that is available at 

Kindly check whether your opinions are properly represented. 
In case of anything incorrect or missing, kindly let me know. 

Thanks in advance for your kind consideration. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock