Rich, > > draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-00.txt with router-selection. > > > > If I understand the intent, I believe it is a mistake to merge the two > > documents. It would be better to keep all mandatory changes to the ND > > spec in a way that they are clearly identifiable. Burying mandatory > > changes to the ND document within a related (but > > optional-to-implement) document will make it hard for folks > > to find those changes. > > > > Resurrecting host-load-sharing seems a fine way to go. At some point, > > it would probably make sense to incorporate the text directly in the > > ND spec anyway. (Or maybe we should just delay making the update until > > ND needs to be respun -- this depends on what other issues people have > > with the ND spec.) > >Yes, originally this document was entirely optional but when I merged in >load-sharing it picked up a mandatory requirement. The main rationale for >merging is that both affect the same code (next-hop determination). On the >other hand, it is confusing to have mandatory & optional mixed. Bob, what >do you think?
My original preference was to keep them separate, but there was a lot of push back on the mailing list. Based on the mailing list discussion, we combined them. I agree that despite the work to combine them, it is confusing to have mandatory & optional mixed. My recommendation is to publish them separately. This will require some small changes in the default router selection document (keeping the load sharing, but changing the mandatory/optional text). Any objections to this approach? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
