Re: Mini WGLC draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats-02.txt

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> I agree. My problem with the identifier definition is that an ULID 
> doesn't fit this definition, most notably because:
> 
>                     The identifiers are not associated with an
>                     interface.
> 
> My conclusion is that the definition is too strict so it should be 
> changed to encompass ULIDs so nothing stands in the way of applying this 
> document to solutions that use ULIDs.

Ignore my mail asking for clarifications; I now see the issue.

I think we should reword the above sentence to say that the identifiers 
are not tightly bound to an interface; to provide communication 
survivability when one interface fails the identifiers must be usable on 
any interface.

(I welcome suggestions for how to make that text shorter.)

    Erik