Re: [DNA-BOF] Potential Workplan for comment

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> 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.

There was a section in the IPv4LL spec (which I'm editing), but the AD
(Thomas Narten) felt it would be better off as a separate document --
and thus the IPv4 NAD I-D was born.

A bunch of folks from DHC WG were part of the discussion of the issues,
and much of the document does touch on issues relating to RFC 2131. But I
won't presume to speak for DHC WG or the Internet ADs in terms of whether
the IPv4 NAD document will be accepted within DHC WG, once it's presented.

> 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?

Well, a section could be written for one doc that could be referenced from
the other. So the important thing is not so much common work as common
review.  I suspect that where DHCPv6 is deployed, IPv6 DNA will
end up having some similarities to IPv4 DNA. Is it true to say that the
major differences between these two scenarios result from differences
been ARP and ND/NS?

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

I think it is worth talking about DHCP-based DNA scenarios on the DHC
list, yes.