RE: Transport level multihoming

[smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)]

Yes, we welcome proposals and drafts, but the present focus
is on bringing to last call (i.e., please shout now) two
main documents:

	#1 - how multihoming is done today in the Internet
	#2 - requirements for multihoming in an IPv6 Internet
             (which probably should say "AT LEAST #1 and some more things")

After those two are agreed to, we can start examining individual
proposals against #2.  Until then, while the specific proposals
for protocols are an interesting way of converging on a reasonable
architecture in which to develop various specific protocols,
the freight train is a little before the foal...

So, while it's good to see interesting ideas from a number
of authors being put forward as drafts, I'd like to suggest
that the authors take a close look at the various present inputs 
to numbers one and two above.

Since it's hard to forsee us recommending a standard which
does not fully meet the requirements document, everyone
should be asking: is what is developing now too strict, too loose?
Are there pieces missing?  Are there pieces that should be missing?
Are we so on the wrong track that you are motivated to write a 
counter-proposal to numbers one or two above?  And so on.

Yours in wondrous TechniProcess,

	Sean.