Hi Margaret, ACK on RFC. On clarity. Yep that would help.
thanks /jim On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for your support. > > >I do think this should be working group item per all the health warnings > >in the spec that this is a **recommendation** but should be on BCP track > >not standards track is my feeling. > > The design team has discussed this, and we think that this document > should be published as an informational RFC. It is important that > this be published as an RFC, so that it can live longer than six months, > but the document itself does not contain any standards or practices -- > just informational recommendations to another standards body. > > >3. I do not think we should spend time in the IPv6 WG discussing how, > >what, or why 3GPP should support our indirect IPv6 policies (e.g. Site > >Local, Privacy, Use Models) for IPv6. This will be counter productive > >for the working group and hold up forwarding a technical recommendation. > > I agree that we should not make any specific recommendations regarding > 3GPP supporting these things. However, the 3GPP standards should allow > laptops that do support these things to be attached via 3GPP handsets. > As the 3GPP standards exist today, a laptop that uses privacy addresses > for web connections may not be able to access the web when attached via > a 3GPP handset. > > We tried to make this distinction clear in the document, but it may > not be clear enough. > > Margaret > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
