Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> >> If the words
> >> 'within the IESG' were removed, the sentence would stand and makes much
> >> more sense than worrying about IETF process in a mechanism requirements
> >> doc.

> Does anybody have any other proposed changes to this document, or should
> I roll a -04 with that change only, ready for wg last call?

There seems to be a discrepancy between the requirements listed in the
draft and the fact that everyone assumes there won't be a solution that
can meet all of them. I'm afraid this opens up the possibility of problems
down the road when people can easily dismiss otherwise promising
multihoming solutions by pointing out it doesn't meet one or more
requirements.

Some text indicating which requirements are absolutely essential and which
are also important, but can be dropped if there aren't any multihoming
solutions that satisfy them would be good, I think.

On the other hand: I certainly don't want to slow down the whole process.

Iljitsch van Beijnum