In determining customer requirements for "multihomed" or generic
high-availability services, I often find there is a major terminology
problem. Customer expectations may not be met because they are using
"cache" or "mirror" differently than an ISP person.
After the April IETF meeting, Jacob Palme posted to the general IETF
mailing list what I tink is an excellent start on the problem. There was
almost no response, other than a comment or two that different application
communities use the terms differently.
Perhaps these issues would be more of interest in NANOG, because I think
they are very operational at the requirements definition end. Unless a
more useful place to collect comments emerges, I'd like to record the
consensus in my I-D on multihoming requirements, currently
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berkowitz-multirqmt-01.txt
My thoughts would to be to get one more round of comments, see if the IETF
Operations Area wants to consider it, and if not send it to the IESG as an
individual contribution in a month or two. The subject is one of those
things that doesn't quite fit the RFC model.