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

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Michel Py wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Please see the subject field. The proposal is to remove the word
"requirements" and normative language. This solves your perceived
problem. Can't we just get past this and publish it?

  Brian