RE: multi6-functional-dec and re-homing

Kurtis,

> > This would support a larger set of possible re-homing scenarios, and =
I
> > think it is compatible with the wordings of re-homing definition in
> > draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-03.txt.
> >
> > I had a short off-list mail exchange with Marcelo and Jari and they
> > agreed, but recommended to solicit the list opinion as well.
>=20
> I have no objections to the text leaving this possibility open, but I=20
> have some more concerns about actually implementing this.

I think we discussed this at the interim last June, to some extent.  I =
think
that defining what would be a 'more prefered path' would be.  However, =
that
could be based on local policy and out of scope for standardizing.  So, =
in
summary, I would support the text.

John