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

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@kolumbus.fi>]

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?

I think the problems are related. They could be
in different groups, though.

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

Its not a big difference IMHO but I personally
would find it a bit easier to focus on DAD optimization
within DNA.

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

Maybe. But its not so clear as it would be with
optimistic DAD included.

> Please don't read too much into these questions,
> though if you are firmly committed to working on
> only DNA or only on DADv6 Optimization (out of the two),
> then that may be helpful to state.

I'd like to work on both. Myself and the folks I know
would probably work on these issues regardless of the chosen
forum.

Anyway, as Pekka stated this is largely an organizational
matter for the ADs and different WG chairs to figure out.
One thing to consider is the size of the groups; I think
DNA would be a smaller, perhaps a bit more task-oriented
group than, say, IPv6 WG. Another issue is expertise. DNA
appears to have a bigger concentration of folks with wireless
clue than a generic WG. OTOH, IPv6 folks have the best
concentration of DAD clue. So which part of the expertise is
more important? Its a close call, but if it were up to me,
I would put optimistic DAD and DNA in the same group.

--Jari