Subject: Re: Draft of updated WG charter\

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:35:07 -0500 (EST)

> From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>

    > We .. eagerly await deployable solutions that can be transparently
    > rolled out to my desktops.

TANSTAAFL.

Multi-homing is done because there's a benefit - more reliability,
principally. However, you never get a benefit without a cost - and the cost
is more complexity.

    > perhaps need to come out with more compelling arguments

Funny, I thought we spent the last couple of years doing just that -
establishing *why* multiple addresses were the only feasible alternative.

	Noel

---

From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:51:29 +0000

> principally. However, you never get a benefit without a cost - and the cost

Yes. However, see below.

> establishing *why* multiple addresses were the only feasible alternative.

I do not believe that this is the sticking point. I will reiterate
however, that whatever solution is proposed, if it is ever to be widely
deployed, the mechanisms to enable it to work must be nearly or at least
around the ball-park of transparency as DNS or congestion control. I.e.
most people aren't even aware of what is happening underneath the deck
so to speak, said he, mixing metaphors.

/vijay

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:16:22 +0100

Everybody,

This discussion has got WAY off its subject, which is the draft charter.

If you want to discuss XYZ please change the subject of your message to XYZ.

Can we please limit this thread to for specific suggestions for changes 
to the draft charter?

Thanks
  Brian
  co-chair