Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt

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

Well, I'm not sure how to treat these comments as constructive.
We know that there are conflicting goals here; that's exactly
why the draft was downgraded from being a requirements document.

I think the review is written from the viewpoint of a solution
or class of solutions. The draft is written more from a utopic
viewpoint. So I don't think most of the comments can actually
be transformed into text changes. 

The best fix I can suggest is to take this sentence from the
Abstract:

> This document outlines a set of goals for proposed new IPv6
> site-multihoming architectures.

and add to it something like
 It is recognized that this set of goals is ambitious and that
 some goals may conflict with others, and that the solution or
 solutions adopted will be able to satisfy only some of them.

As to specifics, just one comment:

> routers: create a new architecture, but don't change the routers, change
> the hosts
> 
> hosts: create a new architecture, but don't change the hosts, change the
> routers

That isn't what the text says. It is much more carefully written. It says
make modular, backwards-compatible changes to both hosts and routers.
People already shipping product tend to regard that as fundamental.

   Brian