[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

having scanned the doc.....
my tendency would be towards the middle one.

it's not really a call for more input on nits - this is what that WG has converged on - but a heads-up.

what might happen is that solutions proposed in multi6 lock in existing properties of solutions, or ask for changes in existing solutions, which might cause consternation in other WGs if it's a surprise.

so mentioning this now in v6ops, ipv6 and grow reduces the "late surprise" problem in the next cycle.

take care in the drafting of the note.

Harald

--On søndag, mai 25, 2003 08:29:34 -0700 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

The multi6 WG have through a last-call verified consensus on the
document draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt and want to
request this to be published as an informational RFC.

i have placed on the iesg agenda for 2003.06.12.  but i wonder if
this deserves wider review, e.g., v6ops.  what do you think?  some
alternatives:

  o let it go to iesg with no further review.  after all, anyone
    really interested is in the multi6 fray and should have read
    it.

  o send a note over to v6ops and maybe ipv6 and/or grow wgs to say
    they might want to read and comment before 2003.06.12.

  o issue a two week ietf-wide last call.  yes, this can and has
    been done for info docs.

i am inclined to the middle one, but do not feel strongly.  opinion
and advice solicited.

randy