Hi Margaret, > I do think that this document includes interesting and useful > information about the perspective of cellular handset vendors, > and the technical requirements and issues for cellular handsets. > Within the IETF, therefore, it might be useful to publish this > document as an Informational RFC.
Agreed. > However, I am concerned about how outside groups (specifically > the 3GPP) will interpret publishing this document, even as an > Informational RFC. I think that we can discuss if we need to add any clarifying text here. It could be as simple as this document is informational and should not override any standards documents. Please note that many of the authors of the document are also involved in the 3GPP standardization process. > How are we expecting the 3GPP to use this document? Why is > it needed for a 3GPP deadline? Release 5, as you know, is using IPv6 for the IMN subsystem. The Mobile Node, therefore, needs to have IPv6 in order to access content from IMN. 3GPP specifications have a March deadline. Our document is meant to enable interoperability between networks and cellular hosts. > Will outside groups believe that this document represents a > consensus of the IPv6 WG regarding what the minimal requirements > actually are for an IPv6 cellular host? If so, I don't think that > we should publish this document without a more significant discussion > within the WG. Discussion is always welcome. We have been asking for comment from the working group since London - and we have gotten some. In order to progress the work, the authors felt that the document is ready for last call. > It is not my impression that the WG has reached consensus on some > of the issues raised in this document, specifically: > > - Forbidding the use of DAD on some links > - Situation where IP Security should be optional/disabled > (and the who distinction between "Core IP" and > "IP Security") > - Making ND optional on point-to-point links > - Making IPv6 autoconfiguration optional on hosts (rather > than mandatory on hosts and turned on/off for the > link in router advertisements) > > Also, some of the comments in this document might best be handled > as "applicability" portions of other documents (i.e. use of 6to4 > over a cellular link), rather than as specific requirements for > a class of hosts. Put that way, I can see that the document does a bit more than just give requirements - it also discusses the applicability of some features of IPv6, that is true. > I do think that the WG will need to do some work on defining the > official contents of IPv6, including the minimal requirements for > IPv6 nodes (or hosts and routers), but this will probably require > a considerable effort, and a good deal of negotiation within the > WG and with the IESG. Agreed, we've been talking about this since London, and all of the authors have volunteered to help on this effort. I think a IPv6 Host Requirement document would be a very good thing. > I am concerned that we may bypass this effort, to our later detriment, > by publishing a document now that is mistakenly interpretted as a > standards-track host requirements document by outside groups. I don't share your doubts. I believe that we need this kind of document, as there will be IPv6 enabled phones being produced, probably this year. The networks are already being deployed. Should we not, then try to specify & give guidence on IPv6 - or should we do nothing? One of the prime goals of the document is to ensure that IPv6 works in these cellular networks & that the cellular hosts are good citizens on the net. I do agree that an IPv6 Host Requirements document is needed, and was probably needed last year. However, that should not prevent us from continuing work on this document. In summary, we welcome technical comments & discussion on the draft - we hoped that asking for a WG last call would stir up some comments. Additionally, we believe that a IPv6 Host Requirements document is needed & we are interested in participating. Finally, if some text is needed, in order to clarify that this document should not be taken as a basis for a general IPv6 host requirements document, we'd be happy to consider such a statement. best regards, 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
