Re: An idea: GxSE

[Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>]

In the spirit of fairness to Itojun.  How can we ask him to not use the
charter as a guideline?  Is that not telling the chairs and ADs we are
ignoring him.  I do think we need to keep an open mind and very open ears
and I personally think GxSE has merit.  But we do need some guidelines if
we are to ship an initial recommendation within a reasonable time for the
IPv6 market, where deployment is going to happen even with the bad
economic news, except in the U.S. in the commercial sector for awhile.
The rest of the world wants it yesterday.  So we do that that immediate v6
multihoming to deal with immediately if we can.  Itojun has proposed some
ideas and I think Ohta San that I think we could do to alleviate some of
the pain for that early deployment.

So I think we need to check out Itojun's and others work where it can
solve a problem in the short term per the charter.


/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])


On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jon (Taz) Mischo wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> 
> > 	well, there are at least two.
> > 	draft-yu-simple-ipv6multihoming-01.txt
> > 	draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260-01.txt
> 
> We appreciate the reiteration of existing drafts, however, please keep in
> mind we are a young working group and want to do things RIGHT.  Our
> charter is only our first charter, this may very well change.  I would
> respectfully request that we stop talking about limiting the scope of the
> conversation, and wait until after the requirements phase to do so.  The
> beauty of the requirements phase is that open discussions like these can
> produce new requirements we hadn't thought of before.
> 
> Thank you,
> -Taz
> 
> -- 
>         "Be liberal in what you accept,
>       and conservative in what you send."
> --Jon Postel (1943-1998) RFC 1122, October 1989
> 
>