Re: Requirements draft

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

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> 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.

I second that commotion. After reading
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03.txt
again it seems to me that the problem isn't so much that the
requirements are unreasonable or clash (well, at least not all that
badly), but that many of the requirements aren't quantifiable. For
instance, a solution should be simple. Coulnd't agree more. But what is
simple? To me, configuring a router for BGP is much simpler than driving
a car, as I do the former on a weekly basis and don't have a driver's
license. For other people, this may very well be different.

In any event, the requirements as they are now should provide a basis to
prefer one solution over the other, if one solution consistently meets
the requirements to a larger degree than another.

So that would be:

YES to the current requirements, but without the normative language:

Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

NO to the current requirements: