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

[smd@ab.use.net (Sean Doran)]

| Can't we simply admit the fact that none of us have any operational
| experience to be able to discuss multi6 requirement document
| to be used later to evaluate proposals and move on without it?

I would hope that whatever forum evaluates any proposals from
any body dealing with the IPv6 site multihoming problem, that
"working code" is weighted at least as heavily as "rough consensus".

If you think you have working code that might not survive 
scrutiny based on the emerging rough consensus over the
requirements drafts, *now* is the time to suggest changes.

	Sean.