Hi Margaret,
> Before folks go and do a lot of additional work to update
> draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt based on our discussions,
> I think we have to answer a fundamental question:
I am having a hard time understanding what your objections
to the document are. You have raised some good technical
points & we are looking at how to address them & revise
the document. However, you seem to be saying now that the
technical issues are not important.
> Should the WG publish an informational RFC detailing the IPv6
> requirements for cellular hosts?
Is the issue the title of the document. If the draft were
titled 'Applicability of IPv6 for Cellular Hosts' -
would that make a difference?
> 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?]
If the draft can go through the process of becoming an
RFC, with work group consensus, etc. what is the problem?
> - Everyone with an agenda attempting to publish a
> similar document for their "special"
> category of IPv6 host? [Can we just say 'no'?]
Of course, I do think that you are being very unfair in
this statement. Most of the authors are IETF participants,
not 3GPP participants. We have no 'agenda' - or at
least no more than your average IETF participant. This
is not 3GPP trying to push anything in the IETF. Also,
I really don't think that involving a more diverse set
of participants in the IETF is a bad thing. I think
we ought to encourage more direct participation in the
IETF rather than less. Do you feel it is a problem if
folks from the FOO SDO starting participating in the IETF,
and functioning under IETF rules? I really could not
find a problem with that.
> 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.
My suggestion would be that we work on these documents:
- The current document
- General IPv6 host Requirements
- General IPv6 node requirements (mixture of routing + host functions).
I think that we may want to consider making the current document more
of an applicability statement or something along those lines.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
