Re: Transport level multihoming

[smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)]

| According to the chairs, we shouldn't figure out how to properly route
| it yet, until we finish our requirement draft.

I (personally) would really love some answers to the questions
I posed to you when I wrote up the analysis of your draft here
on the mailing list some months ago.   Certainly, I can be
persuaded that your solution is both a complete and a routing one,
but it will take some work.

I also hope to have some time to write up some detailed questions/comments
about the other specific proposals, but was hoping other folks in the WG
could do some of that for me. :-)

| While 3 multi6 meeting are being spent on it, discussions on specific
| proposals are discouraged to make the requirement draft abstract
| and separated from the real world.

The reqs draft should be based on the draft which explains
what the real world is today.  Anything else would be foolish.
Therefore, I think we are in agreement.

What I would like to have is a toolset so that you and your
"competition" (i.e., other authors) have some hints about the
criteria which must be met before anything like rough consensus
happens in the WG.   The reqs doc based on today's practises,
cleaned up a bit and so on, is the best thing I can think of.

I am open to suggestions.   However, I think we are using
too much time in meta-standardizing.   The reqs document is
not really that hard to complete and move forward.

If you think the reqs are separating from the real world,
please shout out now with specific objections, rather than waiting
for the formal last call.   I know that people are listening...

	Sean.