*> I would accept your interpretation if you can go to a
major search engine,
*> like Yahoo or Altavista, and find me in a brief period
of time ANY version
*> of Mike O'Dell's 8+8 proposal. Don't you think it
shameful that there is
*> no permanent record about a serious effort to deal with
a serious problem
*> (multihoming)? And this is a recent (read: current) problem!
It is indeed shameful. One wonders why it was not published at an
Informational RFC. (It's not too late...)
Bob Braden
Hear, hear! In fact, we may want to create a procedure for "instant
historical" publication, that would take such drafts and publish them as RFC
because we believe that they mark important points in the public debate, and
because we want to ensure that the experience is maintained. Like, a group
of 20 (10? 5? 50?) IETF members could nominate a draft for immediate
publication.
By the way, to answer Elliot's question, it took me two passes to find the
document in Google. His question, "Mike O'Dell's 8 plus 8 proposal",
returned a pointer to the analysis document,
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98aug/I-D/draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-02.
txt (on an IETF server!) then, a query on Mike O'Dell's document's title,
"GSE - An Alternate Addressing Architecture for IPv6", returned a pointer to
http://www.grnet.gr/ipv6/drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-gseaddr-00.txt. Took about
30 seconds total.
An amusing point: following an IPNG working group last call, Bob Hinden
asked the IESG to consider publication of the analysis document as an
informational RFC on January 7, 1999. Nothing happened...
-- Christian Huitema