RE: requirements draft comments.

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>> i guess you have not been tracking drafts in the idr wg
> There are only so many hours in a day.

new stuff where filtering policy can be pushed, not that i like it

> I was not trying to imply that more complex interconnects are out of
> scope, but that the requirements of the words in the current draft can't
> be met by the simple case when a site simply defaults to one provider
> when the connection is up. Either the wording needs to be softened to
> SHOULD, or the default case should be explicitly addressed.

i thought the base case was load balanced, or at least load distributed

randy