Re: Proposed change to draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host after IESG review

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 09/15/2016 05:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This message concerns
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-09 .
> 
> There is one remaining issue in the draft before it can get IESG approval.
> One of the routing ADs proposes the following change. It does not affect
> the normative content of the draft, but it is a technical change (deletion)
> so we'd like to hear if there are any objections from the WG. Please comment
> within a week (silence means no objection to this change). Some more
> background is below the proposed change.
> 
> OLD:
> 
> 2.2.  Expectations of multihomed networks
> 
>    The mechanism specified in this document requires some form of
>    support from the routing protocols used in multihomed networks.  One
>    such way of providing the requisite support in routing protocols is
>    described in a routing protocol independent fashion
>    [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing].  Network designs exist that can
>    usefully limit themselves to static routing (such as a simple tree
>    network), or may internally use no routers at all, such as a single
>    LAN with two CE routers, each of which leads to a different upstream
>    network.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> 2.2.  Expectations of multihomed networks
> 
>    Network designs exist that can usefully limit themselves to static
>    routing (such as a simple tree network) or may internally use no
>    routers at all, such as a single LAN with two CE routers, each of
>    which leads to a different upstream network.  However, the
>    mechanism specified in this document may require some form of
>    support from the routing protocols used in some multihomed networks.
>    The details of such support are out of scope for this document.
> 
> You can see Alia's original DISCUSS comment dated 2016-08-02 at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host/history/ .
> The "SHOULD" mentioned there has already been removed, but her considered
> opinion is that the routing solution is simply out of scope for this draft.

Isn't the reference to [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing] simply
informational?

If my mental diff (not having slept for quite too many hours) doesn't
fail, the only different between OLD and NEW is s/requires&may require/
and the deletion of the (alas informative) reference.

The s/requires/may require" seems to be incorrect (unless I'm missing
something). The informational diff shouldn't be a show-stopper (whether
included or removed... although I'd keep it, given the option).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492