Re: [DNA-BOF] Revised WG Charter

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

Gregory Daley wrote:

> I think this is the second piece of feedback I've 
> received from this. It's clearly not clear enough.
> 
> "...
> ?In order to detect network attachment, it is important
> ?to be able to send and receive IP messages on the link,
> ?even if the link has changed.
> ?The DNA WG will develop a system which allows use of
> ?an IPv6 addresses without the latency cost of the
> ?traditional DAD [RFC2462].
> ?Such a system may allow the transfer of user data while
> ?link-change detection and DAD procedures are in progress.
> ..."

Looks good, thanks. Maybe s/IP messages/IP packets/?

>>>The DNA WG will not provide explicit directions to
>>>implementors about datalink layer issues.
>>
>>I did not get this, but maybe its just me.
> 
> 
> How about:
> 
> "The DNA WG will not define new procedures or APIs
> related to datalink layers."

Much better. (Btw, I think in IETF we tend to talk about
"link layer" more than "data link layer".)


> "...
> * Specify current practice for detecting network
>    attachment and L3 link change in IPv6 networks.
>  
> * Define a protocol extension to for detecting network
>    attachment and L3 link change in IPv6 networks 
>    more reliably and easily.
> ..."

Ok!

--Jari