Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Joe Abley <jabley-ietf@automagic.org>]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:24:54PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> When are we expecting an updated requirements document that
> reflects the extensive feedback sent to the list?

I have seen extensive feedback, but I'm not sure I've seen too much
feedback that would require a change to the existing draft. I may
have missed a thread or two.

> 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.

The existing draft says this:

   Additionally, during failure events described above, multihoming
   solutions must provide re-routing transparency for applications;
   i.e. exchange of data between devices on the multi-homed network and
   devices elsewhere on the Internet may proceed with no greater
   interruption than transient packet loss during the re-routing event.

Brian's paragraph is a dilution of this requirement. While there has
been discussion about specific approaches (e.g. the possibility of
finding a solution at layers greater than three) I do not believe
I have heard anybody disagree with the requirement as currently
stated.

> 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.

I would welcome comment on the paragraph in the existing draft.


Joe