> Parsing through your comment, are you suggesting that be better clarify > some instances, such as > > 1) Closed 'phone' with no additional external interfaces, > limited software & upgradability. > 2) PDA / phone, small device, small configuration ability, > some ability to run extra applications, additional > interfaces possible. > 3) PCMCIA radio card on a full-powered laptop, with > a commercial IP stack
I think making the above distinctions would help focus the discussion. BTW: Does 1) include the ability to run e.g. Java applets or other downloadable code? > If this is useful, then we could then clarify in more detail the > difference between a 'host' and a 'router' - I do think that if > we try to cover both cases in a single draft, we will run into > trouble. The draft uses the term "terminal" which I think is defined in 3G. But does that definition explicitly say something about IP level stuff like host vs. router? Or will there soon be "mobile terminals" that have IP router functionality? I suspect it makes sense to very clearly restrict the document to only be about terminals that have no router functionality. Erik > Again, the authors do see that some devices will have personal > area networks and may route packets, but we feel that this would > be best to specify in another document, because there are a lot > of different issues involved and this model (phone as personal > router) has less applicability than a more generic 'phone' > as an endpoint. > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
