Re: note from the iesg plenary

[smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)]

Randy -

sorry about being administrivial -:)

| routing as we know it, does not have sufficient scoping / reachability
| constraint mechanisms to handle the seeming semantics.

Does that translate to, "this does not need to be in the requirements
doc required of the wg", or something stricter?

(for example, if a mechanism that we do not know were to arise which allows
for both site multihoming AND these semantics, should we give no
additional weight to those proposals which specifically incorporate
those mechanisms?)

speaking for myself ONLY, i think that this needs to be dealt with in
the iEtf even though i think the iRtf RRG would accomodate an I*
suggestion (however informal) to study these things for ipv6 specifically.

my note was intended only to pass along provocative questions which
may be interesting and possibly relevant to the folks here, not
necessarily to incur extra work for the multi6 wg or ops area. :-)

	Sean.