Subject: RE: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:42:39 -0800

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Please see the subject field. The proposal is to
> remove the word "requirements" and normative language.
> This solves your perceived problem. Can't we just get
> past this and publish it?

If you remember what happened in Salt Lake a year ago, I was one of the
strong supporters of sending to last call and you opposed this. I am
happy you since then realized that it was time to finally begin to look
at solutions.

That being said, the reason we have not been looking at solutions since
then is *not* because the requirements doc has not been shipped. The
multi6 charter says that's what we should have started doing 18 months
ago and finished doing a year ago.

> [quote from the multi6 charter]
> APR 01  Begin consideration of approaches and proposals
>         that could be pursued.
> AUG 01  Evaluate approaches and select those to be worked on.
> SEP 01  Submit requirements ID to IESG for publication as
>         Informational RFC.  

You will also note that looking at solutions is chronologically *before*
submitting the requirements drafts in the charter, a point I already
made a year ago.

Read the charter again, and give me a reason why we should ship the
document before looking at solutions.

And while you are at it, please also give me just one reason to believe
that shipping that doc is going to change something in here.

Michel.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:55:21 +0100

Michel Py wrote:
> strong supporters of sending to last call and you opposed this. 

That was the -02 version. I've been happy with the -03 version.

  Brian

> I am

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland