draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-04.txt

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

Ok, I've taken the 03 requirements and made some changes:

3.2.7 "within the IESG" removed (Tony Hain)

2 Normativity removed (Brian E Carpenter)

"3.1.7 Alternate path visibility" added (Craig A. Huegen)

3.2.6 Added no cooperation with non-transit ISPs text  (Craig A. Huegen)

It is available for your perusal at
http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-04.txt

The most important difference with 03 is:

   The use of the words "must", "must not", "required", "shall",
   "shall not", "should", "should not", "recommended", "may" and
   "optional" is not meant to be interpreted as described in
   RFC 2119 [4]. The words "should" and "must" and "required" should
   be interpreted to indicate the described functionality is very
   important, and should be included if at all possible. However,
   lacking the indicated functionality doesn't automatically remove
   a potential solution from consideration as it may be impossible
   to create a solution that completely satisfies all requirements.

I think this is enough to make sure no solution will be killed over
technicalities. Does this mean everyone is inagreement now?

I assume the chairs will know what to do next?

Iljitsch