Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

> It does not have any impact on when DHCPv6 messages are sent. Would you 
> like this text to be removed?

All that needs to be said is that DHCPv6, if it is triggered, occurs in parallel, and that
DNA does not imply any changes to the DHCPv6 protocol or state machine.  It also
would make sense to state that if DHCPv6 completes with a different result, that
(as with RS) this takes precedence over DNA.

> > [BA] Elsewhere the draft talks about stateless autoconfig and 
> > DHCPv6-assigned addresses, but not manual assignment.   Is the intent of 
> > the document to suggest use of DNAv6 for configuration of manually 
> > assigned addresses?  If so, then some of the caveats discussed in the 
> > DNAv4 document could apply.   For example, NS probes don't need much if 
> > any retransmission because alternatives (RS, DHCPv6) are retransmitted.  
> > But if we are talking about manual assignment, then these alternate 
> > mechanisms may not help -- and NS probe retransmission can become more 
> > important.
> 
> 
> I will try to add more text regarding manually configured addresses.

OK.  The DNAv4 draft talks a bit about manually configured addresses, but my
understanding is that this functionality has not been implemented.