Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>]

I may be misunderstanding something here, so let me ask the question
before I expound.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
To: "Multi6" <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D
ACTION:draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt]


> Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > Maybe one could reword this differently: the solution beas some
> > thinking about if it doesn't rely on the 128bit address length of
> > IPv6, and is not easily IPv4-capable.
>
> Yes. But this is the IPv6 multihoming WG, so while applicability to
> IPv4 is an interesting question to ask, it cannot be a decision
> criterion.

I'm not sure what the difference between "bears some thinking about"
and "being a decision criterion" is in Brian's mind.

What I'm hoping Brian is saying is, "it's OK to notice whether a
proposal works for IPv4, on this mailing list, but 'doesn't work for
IPv4' can't be used to disqualify a proposal".

The reason I'm asking is, I've been very aware that multi6 was willing
to host discussions at the very edge of the WG's charter, because
multi6 was the "least wrong" place to have these discussions. Sean
Doran (former WG chair) said basically, "why the heck not?" on August
9, in the "loc/id split" thread.

If Brian is saying that discussions about IPv4 suitability don't
belong here, we need to find a place where they do belong.

I THOUGHT that Leslie asked Geoff to set up a mailing list after the
IAB workshop in Vienna, but the minutes at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/127.htm don't show this action
item. So, as Sean said, this is the least wrong place that exists
today - how wrong is it?

Spencer