[DNA-BOF] Re: Quick thought experiment on DAD Optimization and DNA

[Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>]

Greg Daley wrote:
> There have been some opinions expressed
> recently about the union of IPv6 DAD optimization
> and DNA techniques (That it may be better to
> treat them separately, for example, by dealing with
> them in different groups).
> 
> There are three questions I'd like to ask,
> mainly to gauge opinion.
> 
> * Can I ask if anyone thinks DAD and DNA should be
>   in the same group?

In my opinion, DAD optimizaton and DNA are very clearly
related.   It is a different question whether they should
be in the same group.  What is important is that there
are enough of people working on both at the same time.

> * If there was an alternative venue with sufficiently
>   expert participants, would it be better to have
>   DAD optimization in a different group?

For me personally, having DAD optimization and DNA in
a single working group would make my work easier.  On
the other hand, if doing DAD optimization in IPv6
instead of DNA would lead to more knowledgeable people
in participating to the work, that would be a sufficient
reason for doing it in IPv6.

Hence, the real question is whether people interested
in the area would be motivated enough to work also
at DNA in addition to IPv6, or not.  Currently there
seems to a be a few important names missing.  However,
I don't know if they are aware of potentially doing
DAD optimization in DNA.

> * Would the DNA group left over from a topic
>   split have sufficient interest to continue
>   separately?

Hard to say.  Maybe.  However, if even IPv4 DAD
is moved (to dhc4), the real task left in hand
is mostly IPv6 specific and fairly small.  Hence,
the alternativity would be to charter it as an
item in the IPv6 WG, and run a design team.

In my opinion, most of these questions are about
IETF management policy, and whether the ADs want
to favour small and limited working groups or large
and long lasting working groups.

--Pekka Nikander