Hi Jari,
>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. I hope that we do have agreement about this. Are there others who disagree? >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? This is a very good question... One answer is that I think that we could produce an "IPv6 over 3GPP PDP Contexts" document fairly quickly. This document could address several of the issues raised in your document. It _will_ take a while for the IPv6 WG to reach consensus on the minimal requirements for an IPv6 node. IMHO, reaching real consensus on these requirements will take a similar amount of time, whether we do it as part of a standards-based "node requirements" effort, or whether we do it for an informational "cellular host requirements" document. I don't believe that limiting the discussion to "cellular hosts" will substantially reduce the amount of effort, as cellular hosts span the spectrum from low-end cell phones to high-end laptops. I do not support publishing an informational document quickly that does not actually represent the consensus of the IPv6 WG regarding what the minimal requirements for an IPv6 host actually are... I think that such a document could do more harm than good. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
