Re: DNA BoF Charter Review (Re: [DNA-BOF] BoF Last Call on DNA WGCharter.)

[Alper Yegin <alper@docomolabs-usa.com>]

>> For IPv4, this is now being done in DHC, i.e., see
>> draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-04.txt.
>> 
>> So, the remaining question is where to do the IPv6 work.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Here is my replacement for the previous two dot points.
> "...
>  * Liaise with existing working groups (DHC, ZEROCONF, MIPSHOP, IPv6)
>        to ensure that their requirements for robust attachment
>        detection are met.  Information from this liaison
>        will feed into either working group, as is appropriate.
> ..."
> 
> I don't expect that this is about selling DNA to other
> working groups.  This would try to ensure that appropriate
> needs are met by solutions coming out of DNA, and no
> overlap work occurs.
> 
> For example, we're fairly confident that DHC is working fine
> with DNAv4, but it may be useful to have matched terminology
> for both solutions (for DNAv4 and DNAv6).

I'm a bit confused about the strategy here. I thought the original idea was
to bring common DNA-related work from various WGs, most notably Mobile IP
and DHC, and tackle it under a separate WG. So, why is DNAv4 back to DHC
now?

Alper