Hi Jinmei-san,
Look at the inlines.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <JINMEI Tatuya>
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 6:03 PM
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 17:37:23 +0900, 
> >>>>> "Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 
> > Your suggestion looks very good.
> > I need the help of several people:
> > Juha, Jinmei-san and Ohta-san.
> 
> I guess you need my help for the last one, so I'll concentrate on that
> part.
> 
> >> 4. I don't think Jinmei-san's issues 6 and 13 from
> >> http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/msg02915.html were addressed.
> >> 
> 
> > o About issue 6 related to RA approach, I  took Jinmei's second suggestion.
> > I omitted a word "simple" from the RA text.
> > The modified text is as follows;
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 3.1.1  Advantages
> 
> > The RA option for RDNSS has a number of advantages.  These include:
> 
> >  1) The RA option is an extension of existing ND/Autoconfig  mechanisms [3][4].
> >     No new protocol mechanisms are needed for extending an ND implementation to
> >     support this option.
> 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This does not address the first part of my concern: the meaning of
> "(no) new protocol mechanisms" is vague (and can be unfair).
> According to the response from Bob (Hinden), it should mean:
> 
> > The intent of "no new protocol mechanisms" text was it was only necessary 
> > to define a new option, not change the ND protocol.  Just the same as if 
> > one was to define a new DHCP option, the protocol mechanisms of the DHCP do 
> > not need to change.  Does that help?
> 
> (see also
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/msg02952.html
> as a reference)
> 
> With this clarification, the text should rather be:
> 
>   1) The RA option is an extension of existing ND/Autoconfig
>      mechanisms [3][4], and does not require a change in the base ND
>      protocol.
> 
> But we then need to face the fairness issue I pointed out.  This
> "advantage" also applies to the other mechanisms.  Actually, we don't
> even need any new options for the DHCPv6 and WKA approaches.  So, to
> be fair, I'd recommend either
> 
> A: just remove this advantage because this property is common for all
>    the approaches.  (I prefer this option)
> 
> or
> 
> B: make similar points for the other approaches as well.  For example,
>    revise item 6 of Section 3.2.1
> 
>    from
> 
>    6) The specification for configuration of DNS recursive name 
>    servers through DHCPv6 is available as an RFC. 
> 
>    to
> 
>    6) The specification for configuration of DNS recursive name 
>    servers through DHCPv6 is available as an RFC.  No new protocol
>    extensions such as new options are necessary.
> 

The second alternative looks good because this feature is an advantage for each 
approach.
For the fairness, I'll include the feature in each approach's advantage.

> > o About issue 13 related to WKA approach,
> > the reorganization of the text can be done by Ohta-san in order to harmonize with 
> > other approaches.
> 
> I guess you requested Ohta-san's help here, but if I need to say
> something as the one who made the original comment, I don't think this
> is a show-stopper while the change would make the document more
> reader-friendly.  In fact, I noted in my original comment that:
> 

I expect Ohta-san to send his new text to me soon.
As soon as I receive it, I'll recompile our draft and submit it to the IETF 
secretariat.

Thanks again for your contribution.

Paul

> > 13. Section 3.3 (Well-known Anycast Addresses)
> 
> > Readers would expect the same organization for this section as that
> > for Sections 3.1 and 3.2: general description, advantages,
> > disadvantages, and observation.  It might be helpful for readers if
> > Section 3.3 can use the same organization.
> 
> > (This is just a comment, and not a requirement for advancing the
> > document)
> 
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .
> dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
> 

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

Reply via email to