Re: [DNA] CONSENSUS CALL : Document merges

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> As I mentioned earlier, I think option A is the more practical
> option.

Can you clarify? Does more practical   mean "less work for the current
authors", or does it mean something else?

Personally, I think we should go the route that makes the most sense
for implementors who will be implementing from the RFCs, long after
this WG goes away. Even if this is somewhat more work for the WG. 

> > Option A:
> > =========
> > Combine
> > 1) Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Networks (DNAv6)
> > and
> > 2) Tentative Options for Link-Layer Addresses in IPv6 Neighbour Discovery
> > (draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00 + draft-ietf-dna-tentative-00)
> >
> > into one document.
> >
> > Merge
> > 3) Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 - Best Current Practices for
> > hosts
> > and
> > 4) DNA with unmodified routers: Prefix list based approach
> > (draft-ietf-dna-hosts-03 + draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02)

IMO, there should be one single document that tells implementors what
to implement. I don't think it is helpful to have 2 different
documents giving guidanace on this point. 

> > Option B:
> > =========
> >
> > Merge all the above mentioned documents
> >
> > * draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00
> > * draft-ietf-dna-tentative-00
> > * draft-ietf-dna-hosts-03
> > * draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02
> >
> > into a single document.

That would be my preference.

Thomasu