> > I don't think we should. It just starts us down that > slippery slope of creating new "foo hosts" requirements docs. > Your following arguments are reason enough to avoid this path.
Agree we shouldn't. > > > > > If so, how can we prevent the two most likely bad outcomes: > > > > - 3GPP (or other) folks thinking that this document > > is an IETF standard? [May be handled by > > a strongly worded disclaimer in the document?] > > - Everyone with an agenda attempting to publish a > > similar document for their "special" > > category of IPv6 host? [Can we just say 'no'?] > > > > I also think that we should start work on two standards-track > > documents, both of which would use the current draft as > > input: > > > > - An "IPv6 over <foo>" document for 3GPP links. > > - A general "IPv6 Node Requirements" document. > > Definitely agree with this. I also agree. > > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
