Re: WG last-call draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-05.txt

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

It sounds more like a "nice to have" than a major goal. I suspect
it's the sort of thing that might come in a Stage 2 solution,
with topology information being distributed to hosts - not something
I expect to see very soon. Stage 1 seems to be hard enough.

   Brian

David Conrad wrote:
> 
> Just to be explicit:
> 
> Christian raised an issue regarding the ability for 'smart hosts' to be
> able to pick the return path.
> 
> Should this be added to the list of goals?
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 
> On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 06:51  AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > Quite right. Kurt last-called the obsolete draft.
> >
> > Could we restart the last call, on the basis of the -05 draft?
> > My answer on that is: ship it!
> >
> >   Brian
> >
> > Joe Abley wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 02:55 Canada/Eastern, Kurt Erik Lindqvist
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On måndag, maj 5, 2003, at 08:49 Europe/Stockholm, Brian E Carpenter
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hold it!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> I sent several editorial comments on April 16, that Joe stated he
> >>>> would
> >>>> include, and there was one substantive comment on the security
> >>>> considerations,
> >>>> where I think there was an agreed change.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. Joe?
> >>
> >> Those changes were applied, as far as I know. At least, I sent diffs
> >> to
> >> the list at the time and received no feedback.
> >>
> >>>> So at the minimum there has to be an -05 version.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, a last call that arrived 03:00 Monday and expires 12:00 Monday
> >>>> seems a little short ;-)
> >>>
> >>> See other mail.
> >>
> >> -05 is the current draft.
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-
> >> requirements-05.txt
> >>
> >> Joe