Re: [DNA-BOF] About Charter, DAD, and SEND

["Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <sharkey@zoic.org>]

> Do we really need a separate problem statement draft
> for DAD optimization?  The charter clearly says that
> the goal is to reduce delay, and people seem to agree
> on that on the mailing list.

Ummm.  I tend to think not, but then I'm a bit minimalist
about that kind of thing and don't know much about the
mechanics of WGs.

>   3.N  Interoperability with SEND
> 
>    The optimized DAD mechanism SHOULD work when SEND is used.
>    It is desirable that the SEND and DAD optimization work
>    are closely coordinated so that it DAD optimization could
>    benefit from SEND and vice versa.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.  I think SEND is going to be
important.

>   3.N+1  Simultanoeus operation with DNA
> 
>    It SHOULD be possible to optimistically use optimized
>    DAD addresses even before the DNA process has not
>    been completed.  In other words, the hosts SHOULD be
>    allowed to send packets to a newly attached link with
>    the optimistica assumption that the link is the same
>    one that was previously used, without needing to wait for
>    the DAD and/or DNA procedures to complete.

"even before the DNA process has completed", I presume.

> What comes to the solutions (I know it is early to speak
> about them, but anyway), IMHO using pseudo-random addresses
> (e.g. SEND addresses) with careful collision detection
> procedures should be able to fulfil the latter goal.

Yup, such is the approach of Optimistic DAD.  I don't think
it's "early" to speak of solutions, but "late" to speak of
requirements :-)

-----Nick