Re: [DNA-BOF] Potential Workplan for comment

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Bernard,

Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>     * Investigate problem space for DNA for IPv4, Recommend for or
>>against IPv4 DNA
>>           o by IETF 58
> 
> 
> DNA is already part of RFC 2131 and the LLv4 specification so I think
> we're beyond this now.  The question is whether those specifications are
> in need of revision.
> 
> Since RFC 2131 is owned by the DHC WG, we're going to be discussing the
> IPv4 DNA draft there, and if it is accepted as a WG work item, I presume
> that the work will be done there.
> 
> As a result, there's not really a need for "defining requirements" or
> "scope" of IPv4 DNA.

I see your point. Please be aware that I was not
trying to start again on v4 detection.  This
version of the workplan is very malleable.

Is there interest at this stage to assume this
work in either DHC or zeroconf?  This would
make it easier for us to see what role this BoF has for v4.

I think that you mentioned earlier that there are
common reliances between v4 and v6 systems, in
terms of underlying Link-triggers.
Do you think that this work should be done in common
(in DNA) even if another group handles updates to
existing documents?

Is it worth asking some of these questions on the DHC
list?

Greg