RE: please indicate whether you are content with the proposed edits [was: : (multi6) 53rd IETF Meeting]

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Actually I believe Christian has captured what I was looking for.
Assuming the editor interprets concensus the same way he does here, I
will change my response to Yes.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:31 PM
> To: Tony Hain; Sean Doran; jabley@nlri.org; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: please indicate whether you are content with the proposed
> edits [was: : (multi6) 53rd IETF Meeting]
>
>
> I agree with Tony. Michel's e-mail is a list of options, and as such a
> yes-no vote is meaningless. We need a consensus about which options to
> retain. Michel in in latest summary (1.08, sent January 30) lists 10
> issues:
>
> Topics:
> -------
> 1)  About 3.1.2
> 2)  About multihoming classes
> 3)  About DNS
> 4)  About EIDs
> 5)  About cooperation
> 6)  About 3.1.3 Performance
> 7)  About 3.2.5
> 8)  About 4. Security Considerations
> 9)  comment on 3.2.2, and 3.2.3
> 10) Reverse Path Forwarding / filtering
>
>
> From the discussion it seems that we have consensus on almost all
> points:
>
> 2) Adopt the text proposed by Ran, complemented by the caveat proposed
> by Rob.
> 3) I believe there is consensus to add the text proposed by Ran.
> 4) I seem to be the only one proposing this edit. I agree to drop it.
> 5) Consensus to adopt the proposed edit.
> 6) Rough consensus to remove the reference to "manual"
> processing, i.e.
> delete the last sentence in the paragraph
> 7) Consensus to amend the text in the sense of a requirement
> "to retain
> the ability to extract routing information from the router".
> 8) Adopt the text proposed by Rob Rockwell.
> 9) Only Rob Rockell voiced an opinion. I think there is a default
> consensus to keep the original text.
> 10) Adopt the text that Ran proposed.
>
> The point of non-consensus is point 1, for which there are diverse
> opinion, and perhaps a weak consensus to adopt a restricted version of
> the requirement, i.e. state that sites must have a way to load balance
> their "outbound" traffic, saying nothing about "inbound."
>
> If we want to vote, I suggest that we take separate votes on the first
> proposed edit (the load balancing requirement), stating a preference,
> and that we then take a block vote on the 9 others.
>
> My vote is "outbound only" on 1, Yes on 2-9.
>
> -- Christian Huitema