> 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 think the above two documents make a lot of sense. I wonder if there is utility in having a third document; an informational and non-prescriptive document (i.e. no MUST, SHOULD, MAY language) which is more like a document roadmap plus issues for hosts of category X (where X is a rather narrowly defined subset of the 3g/cellular host). For instance, listing the set of documents that implementors need to take into account seems quite useful. Also, discussing tradeoffs of what optional things to implement also sounds useful. And talking about how things fit together i.e. the relationship between IPsec/IKE vs. TLS also sounds like useful information to implementors. But "discussing issues" and not having any normative MUST, SHOULD, MAY language. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
