RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Eliot,

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> 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 strongly agree.

> The question then turns to this: should we revisit the
> requirements document, or simply discard it and place effort
> more along the lines of  the note sent by Iljitsch van
> Beijnum?  It's not that the document is completely wrong.
> I just don't want architects to be so bound by it that we
> end up with something less lasting or useful.

If it was called "recommendations" instead of "requirements" it would
then be design guidelines instead of making it impossible to deliver.
This requirements doc is like a letter to Santa Claus.
Dear Santa,
This is what I want for my IPv6 multihoming solution.
[..] it needs to be perfect.

> Let's have the engineering tradeoffs on the table.

It appears that the chairs and some other politically powerful members
prefer the status quo (do I need to post quotes from this very mailing
list)? Please please say yes.

It also appears that the charter says that's what we should have been
doing 18 months ago:
> APR 01 Begin consideration of approaches and proposals that could
> be pursued.

Apparently, some people have trouble reading charters in here.

Michel.