Brian has suggested that much of this discussion belongs on the ram
list. See
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
and please join it if you feel it is appropriate for you to do so.
Where IPv6 Operations has a useful role here, I think, is to bring
out internet drafts and perhaps RFCs that inform that discussion.
That may include reposting existing internet drafts, and may include
new ones. The key thing, though, is that the question is not "what
are the multihoming requirements for the entire Internet", but "what
are the end-to-end addressing and routing requirements for" what I
will call (for lack of better terminology, not become I like it all
that well) "Transit ISPs, Access ISPs, large edge networks, mid-sized
edge networks, and SOHO and residential networks?" Multihoming is
part of that, but inter-ISP traffic engineering is also part, and
there may be other parts. If two groups of people find that they have
differing requirement sets, the solution is not to force them to come
to some unrecognizable consensus, but to have them describe the part
of the Internet they are describing requirements for and then
accurately cull out those requirements. The classic example of such a
divide that I mentioned in another note is the idea that some ISPs
want PA addressing as a market lock, and some edge networks detest PA
addressing because it is one. One useful note along those lines might
be a well researched set of expectations of the Internet, including
each of its various ecological zones, in ten, twenty, and fifty
years.
Consider a call for submissions to have been placed.
Note, by the way, that I don't automatically assume that all
individual submissions are intended or need to become working group
documents, or that all internet drafts are intended or should become
RFCs. You will note that I quite happily post internet drafts to pose
a discussion and happily let them die if the discussion completes and
they are no longer needed. This isn't a race to get written up in the
record books. But useful contributions to those discussions will be
welcomed, and if the WG is of the opinion that they should be
archived I'm all for it.