RE: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihomingdevelopment

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

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I'm sure we don't need a recharter to downgrade the
> requirements deliverable to an Informational.

I must be missing something. This is what the charter says:

> SEP 01 Submit requirements ID to IESG for publication as
> Informational RFC.  

And it has been used as an excuse for over a year to do nothing. What is
the difference with what you are proposing?

What I am talking about is removing the word "requirements". If
requirements are optional, they are not requirements. Removing
pseudo-normative language is a step in the right direction, but is not
enough, as people will endlessly argue that if there is a requirement
document that says "we must not do this" it will be almost as good as
"we MUST NOT do this" and be enough to block any solution.

Call it "recommendations", "guidelines", "framework" or come up with a
better term but not "requirements".

Michel.