Re: [DNA-BOF] Charter statements for DAD optimization

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

Hi,

Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
[some cut]
>>Maybe we need to talk about the issue with sending and receiving
>>packets within the first second of connectivity, rather than
>>starting with Mobile IPv6.
>>
> 
> 
> I assure that the meaning of "attachment" is a mobile node, incorrect ?
> So, I guess it would be better to begin the DAD issue with MIPv6
> simultaneously.

I'm not sure that it is. It may be an intermittently
connected node (low-earth orbit satellite ground station?),
which has to check its address every 20 minutes when a
satellite passes overhead, and needs to blurt as much data
as possible while in coverage.

Here an extra 3-6 seconds per hour could mean dollars saving on
operational costs.

> 
>>There are some subsystems which need to send or receive packets,
>>immediately after attaching to a new network.  Currently DA
>>specifications prevent transmission or reception from an
>>address on the new link within the first second of attachment.
>>Therefore, DAD optimization may be applicable.
>>
>>
>>>DAD optimization may reveal two distinct strategies: Stateless DAD 
>>>and Stateful DAD, which may be used to develop new DAD schemes. 
>>>Such classification of DAD optimization schemes is 
>>
>>determined according 
>>
>>>to whether the DAD state of addresses is stores in a node 
>>
>>until they are 
>>
>>>allocated. 
>>
>>I'm not sure that this needs to be in the charter at this stage,
>>since it looks like it belongs either in the requirements space
>>or solution space.
>>
>>I think that charter wants to provide an overview of
>>problem drivers for the working group.
> 
> 
> I guess we have to make a initial charter and milestone which
> includes above issues in now. After then, we can add this issue
> to the charter again. In order to discuss these issues, we have to
> begin two kinds of work, problem statement and requirement
> in advance.

I think we have to aim at the sequence
problem-requirements-solution,
even if we have candidate solutions.

I don't want to slow development of any of the
solutions, but we need at least a problem
statement to justify WG time.

Please tell me if you think this is wrong.

Greg