RE: [DNA-BOF] FW: I-DACTION:draft-park-dna-ipv6dadopt-requirement-00.txt

[Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>]

> I think that as a problem statement,
> these initial documents need to describe
> the perceived issues which motivate our
> work.  I guess that in most situations,
> descriptions of possible implementation
> strategies aren't required for this.
> 
> In the current situation though,
> I guess it's OK to have here since the
> information provided is at a theoretical
> level rather than tied to existing proposals.
> 
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Frankly, I am not sure either of these is good 
at this stage... After gathering some opinions,
I would like to try to meet the DNA requirement.


> Oh, I think I see.
> 
> I was thinking in terms of interoperation with both modified and
> unmodified nodes.
> 
> It may be appropriate to mention both requirements/goals here.
> 
> " A router which has been modified for DAD optimization should
>   not interfere with hosts operating correctly. In 
> particular, a router
>   has to interoperate with both the host modification for DAD
>   optimization as well as unmodified nodes."

looks good.

> If you think this would be best handled in a different requirement
> (or is covered by another one) maybe this is not so important to
> have here.

Agreed.




Regards

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics