RE: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Although nobody bothered to answer directly, it seems there
> is consensus that the requirements can be accepted with some
> small changes. Good.

I am opposed to it as-is. The small changes are not going to change the
outcome, and I am sure that I am not the only protocol developer that
does not want his work to be cancelled because it does not meet the
requirements.

Peter, Itojun, and others: this is valid for you as well.

Michel.