Re: [DNA-BOF] Re: Do we need a separate DAD Problem Statement? (wasRe: About Charter, DAD, and SEND)

[Youn-Hee Han <yhhan@sait.samsung.co.kr>]

Pekka Nikander wrote:

> Greg,
> 
> >> IMHO, draft-park-ipv6-optidad-requirement-01.txt
> >> is already fairly good, and could be directly adopted as
> >> a WG item. However, if we do so, I would like to change the R-word
> >> with the less-load "goal", as has recently been done in a few WGs.
> 
> ...
> 
> > Is there a reason to avoid using the word requirements?
> 
> I am just trying to avoid the multi6 rathole.  Multi6
> stalled for over a year, basically debating about requirements,
> and the issue was finally resolved by rephrasing the document
> as a less ambitious goals documents.
> 
> I have also heard multiple stories about IETF WGs
> endlessly debating about requirements, and not getting
> into real proposals how to solve the problems.  (This
> may be due to more and more telecom people being involved
> at the IETF, and they being used to fulfil all requirements,
> even if the solutions get horrendously complex.)
> 
> IMHO, completing rigorious requirements is complete
> waste of time.  What finally matters are the solutions.
> Goals are good in aligning the people's mindset, though.

I agree with you. It is important to develop solution protocols.
That is one of DNA wg's goals. However, although 'DAD optimization'
seems to be within a small scope of work, we are under obligation to 
firstly announce the distinct problems of 'current DAD'. And, I think 
that many people should admit the problems defined. 

And... as you indicated, we should not stay in the problem statement 
and requirements for a long time. After short discussion about them,
we should devote our time to the solutions. So, IMO, the separation
between problem statement and requirements will help speed up the
completion of the discussion about them.

Youn-Hee Han