Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Sean,

>   Meanwhile, there are now two drafts before the mailing list, and
>I would like to urge people to focus on either making substantive
>comments about the CONTENT of the drafts, or on posting one or more
>other drafts.   Overlapping or contrary opinions are perhaps best
>addressed through the latter approach (i.e., if you don't like these
>drafts, write your own, please).

I am not sure if it is "in scope" to disagree with a directive
from the chair, but I disagree.  :-).

I think that it is important for this group to reach consensus
on the requirements for an IPv6 site multi-homing solution _before_
we become bogged down in the details of various drafts.  Also, 
several people may be waiting to submit drafts until _after_ they
can determine if their solutions will address the requirements.

When are we expecting an updated requirements document that
reflects the extensive feedback sent to the list?

Also, how are we going to reach a resolution on our requirements
for IPv6 backwards compatibility, if any?  I have heard one or
two loud (and repeated) objections to Brian's proposed wording:

"An IPv6 host running RFC 2460 IPv6, and running TCP and UDP 
applications, including IPv4 applications running over 
bump-in-the-stack or bump-in-the-API, must be able to open *new* 
TCP and UDP sessions, regardless of which of the site's IPv6 
provider links is up or down."

I have also heard several people agree with this position.  I,
myself, strongly agree with this position.  

Do we have rough consensus regarding this wording, or are there
other people who do not agree with this requirement?  I would
respectively submit that we could have rough consensus on this
point, despite Ohta-san's belief that this requirement is 
unnecessary.

Thanks,
Margaret





>   Meanwhile, there are now two drafts before the mailing list, and
>I would like to urge people to focus on either making substantive
>comments about the CONTENT of the drafts, or on posting one or more
>other drafts.   Overlapping or contrary opinions are perhaps best
>addressed through the latter approach (i.e., if you don't like these
>drafts, write your own, please).
>
>   As is heard from time to time: send code.  Although I guess the
>current popular opinion is send pointers to code. :-)
>
>         Sean.  (your co-chair)