[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
No, she is simply setting the stage for the following questions that
will try to refocus those technical comments into documents where they
make more sense in the framework of other IETF documents.
>
> > 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?
Please don't take this as a personal attack, but you just don't get it.
Approaching the definition of a set of protocol standards from the
limitations of a device perspective is simply wrong. There is nothing
about the device that makes it 'special'. Yes it may be less capable
than other devices available today, but that is not the point. The
document about cellular characteristics you write today will apply to
devices built over the next 5 or 10 years, so the focus has to be on the
specific characteristics of the air-link and why that is different from
other link types. This will also avoid the host vs. router/bridge issues
since the link characteristics don't change based on what the device
decides to do with the packet.
>
> > 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 seriously doubt Margaret was attacking anyone here, just asking the
basic question about how we distinguish between valid reasons for
special-cases. More below:
>
> > 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.
The basic problems with keeping the current document is that at its core
it is fundamentally, and too narrowly, focused on the 3G micro handset,
then looks for exceptions completely out of context from what other
hosts will do. This disconnection appears to be making it difficult for
the authors to see why people are so unhappy about their desire to leave
out basic requirements which are expected of other nodes.
Again this is not a personal attack, but even you are disconnected in
your expectations when you answer me with:
> what is the difference between a handset and a laptop that has
> an embedded 3G radio? Are they both cellular hosts?
Yes they are.
then answer Erik with:
> BTW: Does 1) include the ability to run e.g. Java applets or
> other downloadable code?
I think we would clasify it as closed, no applets or downloadable
code.
Think about it...how can we be defining 'Minimum IPv6 Functionality of a
Cellular Host' when a laptop qualifies, but the definition includes a
limitation that a cellular host may be closed? How does any given node
figure out what capabilities the other end has? Don't we end up with
everyone assuming lowest-common-denominator, and if so have we crippled
or fatally wounded the IPv6 network?
For those that *really* want to be working on a host requirements doc,
that is fine, but it has to be a much more comprehensive document so the
whole community (including the current document authors) can appreciate
the context of the trade-offs. This is particularly true for the case
where hosts have multiple types of links, and may be expected to act
differently based on those link types. At the same time there are some
characteristics of the air-link (like: not all nodes on the link can
hear each other) that make it appropriate to have an IPv6-over-foo
discussing those details. If we don't approach it that way we end up
with a series of 'special case' documents which are more likely to
prevent interoperation than to create it.
Tony
BTW: I am still not convinced that either a 3G or PPP link can avoid
DAD, but I am willing to listen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
