draft-coene-sctp-multihome-03.txt

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

ops-dir review:

- needs editorial, ID-nits, etc. work (e.g. references in the abstract, 
author's address vs editor's address at the end, titles, section 
headers etc. should be first-word capitalized, etc.)

- the request for arch review seems valid.  A workaround would be trying
to split off stuff about routing paths (other than writing down a problem
with them).  Ie. it's a different thing to say "knowledge of routing paths
may be needed for reasons A, B, and C; a solution is TBD." than saying
"knowledge of routing paths may be needed for reasons A, B, and C, and
therefore routing paths must be exposed to end-hosts with mechanisms D, E, 
or F" (or even somoething more normative).

- that is, I'd like to try postpone the issue of routing paths until/if we 
get some architecture on the subject (much more generic than SCTP) first.

- in the SCTP context, I'm not expert, but I'm not sure if it's 
requirement to use "best paths" or absolutely know the routing paths.  I 
think a working principle could also be "try one; assume it works until 
you know otherwise".

- the other option would seem to be work on the architecture now, with
this draft..  frankly doesn't seem to be realistic.