Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I submit that there are several reasons that this group has been (too)
> quiet.  The first is that the requirements document has not progressed.
>     I suspect the authors cannot agree on how to proceed, but I haven't
> actually discussed the matter with them.
> 
> More importantly, however, I believe the document is actually an
> impediment to moving forward.  One can view the document in two ways,
> and neither is positive.  Either the points made in the document are so
> obvious as to not be worth writing down, or they are so constraining as
> to make the resulting solution not worth implementing.

I think we need the document, but since it does indeed contain conflicting
requirements that will need tradeoffs, it clearly SHOULD NOT contain
pseudo-normative language. I would suggest that all the upper case normative
words should be replaced by shoulds and should nots in lower case, and then
just ship the thing as Informational.

   Brian