Subject: RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:02:50 -0700

Brian,

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think we need the document, but since it does indeed contain
> conflicting requirements that will need tradeoffs, it clearly
> SHOULD NOT contain pseudo-normative language. I would suggest
> that all the upper case normative words should be replaced by
> shoulds and should nots in lower case, and then just ship the
> thing as Informational.

Replace "requirements" with "recommendations" and I'm with you.

Michel.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:15:05 +0200

Sure. And in answer to Eliot, its usefulness is to provide
a frame in which to think about proposed solutions.

  Brian

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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:55:13 -0700

> a frame in which to think about proposed solutions.

Given the document will have no force, I suppose I don't care all too 
much.  My point, however, is that the frame appears currently more like 
an overly constraining box.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:49:57 +0200

> an overly constraining box.

We're engineers and should be used to designing in overconstrained
spaces. I just like to know what the constraints are.

I'm sure we don't need a recharter to downgrade the requirements
deliverable to an Informational.

   Brian