[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
Michel Py wrote:
> > 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.
That was the -02 version. I've been happy with the -03 version.
> 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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland