updates from address selection design team

[Arifumi Matsumoto <[e-mail]>]

All,

I'm writing this e-mail representing the address selection design team.

We've worked and discussed much within the design team, and are
about to make important choices to move forward.

Our main draft revised this week covers whole issues, so I'd like
you to review it.
draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02.txt

I extracted the main changes and the choices below.

- separating policy merging issue from protocol work.

 The biggest design choice is separation of policy merging
 issue from the policy updating protocol.

 As we know it, policy table make sense as a whole.
 This is mainly because the precedence value is absolute.
 Thus, policy table merging always involve conflict.
 
 We can merge policies by a heuristic approach.
 But, there is no distinct/established algorithm for merging.
 
 So, we the design team thought we need experiences and time
 for merging process standardization, and we should move the base
 policy distribution work forward to meet the urgent needs from the
 field, while standardizing the merging algorithm as a experimental
 or informational RFC.
 

- RFC 3484 default rule update

  Though, we the design team is not chartered for revising of
  RFC 3484, this issue is closely related to our work of policy
  updating.

  While analyzing the problem cases, we thought some of them 
  should be solved by revising the default address selection rules
  themselves.

  So the design team also discussed about the revision of RFC 3484.
  The output was included in the existing revision proposal that
  I had put together.  
  draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-03.txt


We definitely need input from 6man people to move forward.