Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net>]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 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."

The wording captures one primary benefit of multihoming for the end-user
and distinguishes it from the separate and to me quite likely more
difficult reach requirement of maintaining connectivity for existing
sessions.  Perhaps the latter could be made a separate but distinct
requirement so that the discussion doesn't become confused over exactly
what we're talking about?