Subject: RE: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-04.txt

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:29:58 -0800

May I suggest that this discussion is moot.  We will only gain
rough consensus if we have a proposal that does what we want,
regardless of whether some words are capitalized.

Our time is best spent dealing with the weighty technical issues,
of which there is no shortage.

Tony

|   -----Original Message-----
|   From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
|   Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:52 AM
|   To: RJ Atkinson
|   Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; [email-masked]
|   Subject: Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-04.txt
|   
|   
|   On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
|   > On Wednesday, Oct 30, 2002, at 05:47 America/Montreal, 
|   Iljitsch van 
|   > Beijnum wrote:
|   > >  So if you could state in
|   > > which way you'd want the requirements to change, based 
|   on the current
|   > > situation, that would be good.
|   > 
|   > 	Restore the normative nature of the requirements document
|   > -- including changing "may/should/must" back to "MAY/SHOULD/MUST".
|   
|   What do you suggest _when_ (not if) we run into the 
|   situation that we 
|   can't think of any solution which would satisfy all MUST's?
|   
|   -- 
|   Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
|   Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
|   Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
|   
|   
|