Hi Phil,
> I have a bunch of comments on the document inline which I'll
> send to the authors offlist to avoid clutter. But I have some
> general comments for the list. Something like this is definitely
> needed and for multiple purposes so good job for making a start of it.
Thanks. I'll respond to your points - my remarks are my own
thoughts - I'm not trying to speak for the other authors.
> 1. What is the intention of this document? If it is purely
> guidelines for implementors it should probably be redone as
> guidelines for implementors of IP v6 nodes in 3gpp networks. If
> it's input to SDOs there needs to be some rework identifying
> recommendations that are different from what has already been
> done or is being considered. The document doesn't seem
> to work well for either as written. This document has a lot of good
> material for both but seemed to go back and forth between the two
> goals.
I'd first suggest that some of the folks who will be implementing
IPv6 in in 3G phones (for example) may not be familiar with the
IETF, so that it might be helpful to have this kind of document.
Additionally, we want to insure that as mass produced devices
(some with limited upgradability) hit the market, these devices
work & interoperate with each other and the Internet.
Secondly, I think this should be an IETF document. Other SDOs have
their own way of handling contributions, so I think that
clarifications on requirement language, etc. should be handled
in specific contributions to those SDOs, not in an Internet draft.
> 2. For each of the above is the intention to educate the
> SDOs or the IETF?
Yes to both. At the recent IPNGWG interim meeting in Seattle,
there were lots of questions related to what with the handsets
implement and support - so hopefully this addresses some of
those issues. As far as other educating other SDOs, the
best way forward (IMO) is to ensure that this is an IETF-style
document, and make clarifications in contributions to the
other SDOs
>
> 3. A decision probably needs to be made about what kind of
> host is being considered. Again sometimes it seems the text
> is for hosts that will operate only in a cellular network and
> sometimes for hosts that will operate between a cellular
> network and another kind of network. The requirements for
> these two kinds of hosts could be quite different.
Definately. We are trying to scope this document so that
the minimum set is related to what will only operate via
a cellular network. However, we felt that we should discuss
when certain functionality might be needed, even if not
directly supported by the cellular network. This is one
part of the document that we know needs more work.
> 4. I think there was some concern at the interim meeting
> about the apparent 3gpp intent to limit cellular devices 1)
> to a single global address and 2) to being a host
> and having no possibility for a router function.
First, cellular terminals can have more than one global
address, at least in 3GPP. Additional addresses can be
assigned, as a terminal opens additional PDP-contexts.
However, it is not currently the ability to assign a prefix
to a device. This was identified as an issue in Seattle,
and I think there is some process to bring this issue up
with 3GPP.
Anyhow, I think that router functionality in a cellular
terminal should be documented in a seperate document.
Thanks for the comments - probably it would be good to
address some of these issues face-to-face in London.
cheers,
John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
