Re: draft remarks

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-06-18, at 22.55, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

>
>>> 2.4.19 Referrals don't work all that well in IPv4 either. I think a 
>>> "must" is too strong here. For instance, if referrals fail after a 
>>> rehoming event I would consider that acceptable. A separate effort 
>>> to make referrals work well regardless of multi6 would be good, too.
>
>> This is an area that I think needs just a bit more work, in any 
>> event. First of all, this is not a requirements document, and if you 
>> read it as such, then I went afoul of my own intent.
>
> Yes, this alone is sufficient reason to remove the "must". However, I 
> was overlooking that fact and arguing that even in a requirements 
> document (which this isn't and we don't have) this requirement would 
> probably be too strong.

While I agree that a must would imply that the document have some form 
or requirements status, referrals are of such a strong demand from 
applications that I think this needs to be addressed one way or the 
other. But at the interim meeting we already said that we would try and 
cover applications requirements in some way. So I agree with Iljitsch 
but I do think that the question should be in the document. Perhaps we 
could also come up with some more sub-questions for this point for 
helping describing exactly how referrals would work.


- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQNaUg6arNKXTPFCVEQK6cgCfcYp+oWNUb9Q8nDGXGDCDsj/IzuIAn2rQ
0GTh3qPlfiYxxpyhBlS9/DZE
=sLiW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----