Subject: RE: please indicate whether you are content with the proposed edits [was: : (multi6) 53rd IETF Meeting]

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:30:51 -0800

I agree with Tony. Michel's e-mail is a list of options, and as such a
yes-no vote is meaningless. We need a consensus about which options to
retain. Michel in in latest summary (1.08, sent January 30) lists 10
issues:

Topics:
-------
1)  About 3.1.2
2)  About multihoming classes
3)  About DNS
4)  About EIDs
5)  About cooperation
6)  About 3.1.3 Performance
7)  About 3.2.5
8)  About 4. Security Considerations
9)  comment on 3.2.2, and 3.2.3
10) Reverse Path Forwarding / filtering

From the discussion it seems that we have consensus on almost all
points:

2) Adopt the text proposed by Ran, complemented by the caveat proposed
by Rob.
3) I believe there is consensus to add the text proposed by Ran.
4) I seem to be the only one proposing this edit. I agree to drop it.
5) Consensus to adopt the proposed edit.
6) Rough consensus to remove the reference to "manual" processing, i.e.
delete the last sentence in the paragraph
7) Consensus to amend the text in the sense of a requirement "to retain
the ability to extract routing information from the router".
8) Adopt the text proposed by Rob Rockwell.
9) Only Rob Rockell voiced an opinion. I think there is a default
consensus to keep the original text.
10) Adopt the text that Ran proposed.

The point of non-consensus is point 1, for which there are diverse
opinion, and perhaps a weak consensus to adopt a restricted version of
the requirement, i.e. state that sites must have a way to load balance
their "outbound" traffic, saying nothing about "inbound."

If we want to vote, I suggest that we take separate votes on the first
proposed edit (the load balancing requirement), stating a preference,
and that we then take a block vote on the 9 others.

My vote is "outbound only" on 1, Yes on 2-9.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:46:16 -0800

Actually I believe Christian has captured what I was looking for.
Assuming the editor interprets concensus the same way he does here, I
will change my response to Yes.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:31 PM
> To: Tony Hain; Sean Doran; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: please indicate whether you are content with the proposed
> edits [was: : (multi6) 53rd IETF Meeting]
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:25:40 +0100

I agree with Christian. I'd also like to see a complete new draft ASAP,
since it will be less confusing than this discussion.

   Brian

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:30:14 -0500

> since it will be less confusing than this discussion.

I also think that incorporating my interpretation of michael's edit
list into a fresh rev would give us something concrete to argue about.

Does that make five?

Joe