Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Ben Black <ben@layer8.net>]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:01:44PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> If you combine both paragraphs, you would get:
> 
>          (1)  The solution must provide re-routing transparency for 
>                  applications (possibly requiring changes to the applications
>                  and/or the host stack to get this), AND
>          (2)  RFC 2460 IPv6 implementations must still be able to establish
>                  *new* connections regardless of which links are up 
>                  or down.
> 

Are there any _technical_ objections to this change? 

> 
> BTW, I think that the requirement for "re-routing transparency" is one
> of the places where the existing requirements docs assumes a routing
> system approach (rather than an end-system approach).  It seemed clear
> from discussion that the document should be editted to remove things 
> that assume that the solution will be a routing solution.
> 

I agree with this.  Again, are there any _technical_ objections?


Ben