Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>]

>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> writes:
    Eliot> I suspect the authors cannot agree on how to proceed,
    Eliot> but I haven't actually discussed the matter with them.

  I think that there is other stuff occuring as well.
  I know that some of the authors have changed jobs vastly.

  Sean, can you put us back on track?

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

  I would like to see things divided up into three categories:
  1) agreed to requirements. These are EXPLICITELY in scope.
  2) agreed to non-requirements. These are EXPLICITELY OUT OF SCOPE.

  3) requirements which to be controversial. These will be debated, and
likely it is based upon whether we ultimately rule it in scope or out
of scope that will determine the nature of the solution.

  Iljitsch has listed the possible solutions. The problem is that we don't
know how we are going to decide on which is best. 

  I think that I know the best solution, but I have learnt that not every
agrees, and some run away screaming. I would like to walk through the
proposals, and get a better understanding of the objections to them.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [