Hi John,
>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. I don't believe that the technical issues that you have raised are unimportant. I think that they are very important -- important enough that they should be addressed in standards-track documents. But, I don't think that this document is in quite the right form to move on to the standards track as written, and I don't think that it makes sense to publish it as an informational document. Your document and your arguments have convinced me that we should publish a standard definition of the minimal requirements for an IPv6 node, an "IPv6 Node Requirements" document (or perhaps two documents, one for hosts and one for routers?). This should be a standards-track document, not an informational one, and I think that your document would serve as an excellent starting point for this work. It is important that the minimal host requirements of IPv6 be applicable to low-end systems, such as cell phones, and that should be reflected in our general IPv6 node requirements effort. However, I don't think that we want to have a fragmented set of informational host requirements documents with different requirements for different IPv6 application spaces (cellular hosts vs network appliances vs. home gateways vs. car infotainment equipment, etc.). If I'm missing some reason why cellular hosts are special, that explains why they would need an informational requirements document (when other applications would not), please explain. Most of the things that make the hosts you've discussed unique are related to the fact that they run over a specific link type. In my opinion, these differences, and the behaviour that is required because of them, should be captured in a link-specific standards-track "IPv6 over <foo>" document, such as "IPv6 over 3GPP PDP Contexts". This document could be based on portions of your current document. Of course, I don't personally get to decide what the IPv6 WG publishes. I'm just voicing my opinion... > > 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? Well, this is the process of trying to find that consensus. Consensus on publishing an RFC doesn't just mean that no one can find any technical problems with the contents. It also means getting the consensus of the WG and the IESG that a document is needed in this area, and that publishing that document would be useful. I have voiced technical issues with the document AND reasons why I thnk the WG may not want to publish this specific document as an Informational RFC, even if the technical issues were addressed. > > - 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. I can see how you interpreted my comments this way, but this isn't what I meant... I don't think that the authors of this draft have an "agenda" (in the negative connotation sense) that runs contrary to the interests of the IETF, IPv6 or any related work. I meant "agenda" more in the sense of "focus" or "area of interest". There are a lot of people involved in the IETF (myself included) who have a strong interest in making sure that IPv6 is applicable for certain types of uses. This is a positive thing, because we often have a lot of technical knowledge about those environments, and we can add to the quality and wide applicability of IPv6 by reviewing documents and representing our differing perspectives. However, I don't think that the WG should publish a number of different informational RFCs, representing all of these different positions regarding what the minimal contents of IPv6 should be for each type of application. Instead, we should bring all of our knowledge and skills together to write a single standards- based "IPv6 Node Requirements" document that defines what the minimal requirements are for all IPv6 nodes. >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. No, I have no problem with that at all! In fact, I'd like to see even more of it. Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
