RE: (multi6) requirements draft comments

[smd@ebone.net (Sean Doran)]

| I fully agree with Christian and Craig here. I have proposed that idea =
| of different classes a while ago on the mailing list (if you look into =
| the archive, the title was "a new spin on multihoming: multihoming =
| classes). It did not seem to trigger much interest at the time.

Unfortunately, IETF working groups are not captive audiences,
and the volume of drafts means that anyone who participates
in several WGs will have a hard time being motivated to keep
up with a large fraction of them.

While Thomas and I are obliged to try to focus everyone on the two
drafts in the multi6 charter, I don't think many people would
mind some small degree of "hey, go look at my draft-xyz-..., which
is relevant", when it is indeed relevant to the discussions at hand.

	Sean.