revised requirements draft

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Hi all,

Thomas and Sean asked me to make some edits to the -02 requirements
draft, drawing on what consensus I could see from the list archives
(including Michael Py's rolling summary of issues, which was very
handy).

What follows below is a candidate -03 draft. Here's a summary of the
pertinent diffs; comments most welcome. Note that this draft has not
been sent to the rfc editor yet, so if people have comments I'll
harvest the diffs paragraph by paragraph and make changes appropriately.

|3.1.7 Impact on DNS
|
|   Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed
|   dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have
|   demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to
|   support them are readily deployable.

New section, based on suggestions from Christian Huitema and RJ
Atkinson. Brian Carpenter included a requirement that a proposed
solution should include an analysis of its impact on the DNS, which
I omitted since it seems inherent in 3.1.7 that analysis is required.

|3.1.8 Packet Filtering
|
|   Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged

revised requirements draft

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

Hi all,

Thomas and Sean asked me to make some edits to the -02 requirements
draft, drawing on what consensus I could see from the list archives
(including Michael Py's rolling summary of issues, which was very
handy).

What follows below is a candidate -03 draft. Here's a summary of the
pertinent diffs; comments most welcome. Note that this draft has not
been sent to the rfc editor yet, so if people have comments I'll
harvest the diffs paragraph by paragraph and make changes appropriately.

|3.1.7 Impact on DNS
|
|   Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed
|   dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have
|   demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to
|   support them are readily deployable.

New section, based on suggestions from Christian Huitema and RJ
Atkinson. Brian Carpenter included a requirement that a proposed
solution should include an analysis of its impact on the DNS, which
I omitted since it seems inherent in 3.1.7 that analysis is required.

|3.1.8 Packet Filtering
|
|   Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged

revised requirements draft

Hi all,

Thomas and Sean asked me to make some edits to the -02 requirements
draft, drawing on what consensus I could see from the list archives
(including Michael Py's rolling summary of issues, which was very
handy).

What follows below is a candidate -03 draft. Here's a summary of the
pertinent diffs; comments most welcome. Note that this draft has not
been sent to the rfc editor yet, so if people have comments I'll
harvest the diffs paragraph by paragraph and make changes appropriately.

|3.1.7 Impact on DNS
|
|   Multi-homing solutions either MUST be compatible with the observed
|   dynamics of the current DNS system, or the solutions MUST have
|   demonstrate that the modified name resolution system required to
|   support them are readily deployable.

New section, based on suggestions from Christian Huitema and RJ
Atkinson. Brian Carpenter included a requirement that a proposed
solution should include an analysis of its impact on the DNS, which
I omitted since it seems inherent in 3.1.7 that analysis is required.

|3.1.8 Packet Filtering
|
|   Multihoming solutions MUST NOT preclude filtering packets with forged
|   or otherwise inappropriate source IP addresses at the administrative
|   boundary of the multi-homed site.
|

Re: revised requirements draft

My opinion: ship it. We need to get done with requirements so that
we can proceed to look at solutions. Twiddling the requirements to
achieve universal consensus isn't productive.

   Brian

Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Thomas and Sean asked me to make some edits to the -02 requirements
> draft, drawing on what consensus I could see from the list archives
> (including Michael Py's rolling summary of issues, which was very
> handy).
...

Re: [Multihoming 과제] 4차 회의록

Re:_[Multihoming_=EA=B3=BC=EC=A0=9C]_4=EC=B0=A8_=ED=9AŒ의록

Anybody here speak Korean *and* English?

On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 12:33 , Jaehoon Jeong wrote:

> 저희 팀에서 의견 조정하여 말씀드리겠습니다.
> 수고하세요.
>  
> 정재훈 드림.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jongwook Woo
> To: Jaehoon Jeong
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:33 AM
> Subject: RE: [Multihoming 과제] 4차 회의록
>
> 정재훈님
>  
> Draft 때문에 다시 mail 드립니다.
>  
> 어젠 경황이 없어 말씀을 못 드렸는데아무래도 저자 및 그 순서가
민감하기 때문에 직접쓰시는게 
> 어떨런지요?  First Author는 직접 쓰며 main idea를 낸 사람이어야 하고 나머지 author들
> 도 그 공헌도에 따라 기재가 되야 될 듯 하므로 제가 쓰면 여러 민감 한
부분을 건드리게 될까 봐 걱정
> 입니다 - 가령 first author  문제, 연대 및 ETRI에 누가 author로 들어가야 하는가 등.
>  
> 좀 더 생각 해 보시기 바랍니다.
>  
> 종욱
>  
>
> ********************************************************
>
> 연세대학교, 연구교수, Ph.D.
> Email:  jongwook <at> yonsei.ac.kr, jongwook <at> alumni.usc.edu
> URL: http://ceng.usc.edu/~jowoo
> 전화: 2123-4745 (O)
>           365-8370 (F)
> 주소: 서울시 서대문구 신촌동 134번지
>           연세대학교 공학원 227호
>
> ********************************************************
>