[dna] DNA and DHCPv6

["Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]>]

I believe that many of Ralph's issues below are the result of poor wording
in the document. 

The draft specifically says that it does not change the DHCPv6
protocol, state machine or timers, so that any situation in which
there is an implied DHCPv6 change represents an error. 

So if a host delays transmission of an initial DHCPv6 message that 
should still be the case with DNA.   Also, the draft should not 
change the retransmission rules for DHCPv6.  The paragraph in question,
(which is not well worded) was intended to refer only to NS retransmission.

With respect to the M/O bits, the draft should not change the behavior
of an implementation.  So if an implementation ignores the M/O bits
(as some do), then that behavior should continue.  If it
doesn't ignore them, then it will continue to take them into account as
it did before.  

Also, DNA does not change the assumptions which DHCPv6 uses to obtain
an address. If DHCPv6 would normally attempt to confirm a previously 
held address, it should continue to do so;  if it would normally 
attempt to obtain a new address, it will do that instead.  

Given the above, DHCPv6 and DNA largely operate as "ships in the 
night";  the only interaction comes when the two procedures come
to different conclusions, in which case the text in Section 4.7.1
comes into play.