Margaret, You had the below proposal:
> 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. I would very much like to have e.g. the general node requirements document, and your approach of splitting into two documents looks very clean. I have already in the past announced my interest on working on the general host document, so I would like to see it happen, as soon as possible. However, I do have a concern. Or at least some issues, but perhaps you can suggest how to deal with them. I think most of us agree that a host requirements document is something that we should have and is a necessary one. If we had a general document I'm pretty sure there'd be no need for any specific XXX host requirements documents. Now, my concern is this: how long do you think producing the general document to an RFC will take? What should we say in the meantime to folks who want to deploy IPv6 now? If there are decisions as to what to do with ND/DAD/whatever, should those be made by (a) IPv6 WG, (b) 3GPP, or (c) vendors? Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
