The only references to this draft is the following:
viewed that both could be useful, depending on ISP wishes. Asked
both to flesh out and continue both. Not sure if will be stds track
or BCP or what. Asked authors to use more descriptive names,
e.g. "tunnels for MH site fallback", "prefix prop agreements for MH
site fallback"
The draft under consideration in this case is identical to that presented
originally, having neither been fleshed out nor clarified in its
applicability. I again request that the situations in which this draft
is more appropriate than the Itojun draft be specifically described.
Ben
On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 11:19:13AM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Ben,
>
> >At 10:33 AM 6/26/2000 -0700, Ben Black wrote:
> >Where can I find these interim meeting minutes and do they
> >include information on exactly what situations your draft
> >covers which Itojun's does not?
>
> The minutes can be found at:
>
> http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/meetings.html
>
> It was the consensus of the working group to publish this document and
> Itojun's draft (and possibly others) as multihoming solutions that help in
> specific situations. It was clear that they are not universal
> solutions. The w.g. is also moving forward with other related work such as
> Rich Draves address selection procedures.
>
> Bob
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
