Hi Charlie, > > 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? > > What if we make some revision to "draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host", > and run that as Informational? Then we could have IPv6 Host > Requirements later on the standards track. We could even > have a later IPv6-over-3GPP standards track document which > would obsolete the Informational document, if desirable. > Or, would that be IPv6-over-3.75G?
That could be one way forward. What would the downside to this be? I think that one of the current sticking points in our discussion is that there is no IPv6 Host Requirements document. If there was, we wouldn't have this problem. Additionally, I think that a IPv6 Host Requirements document is extremely important, I will gladly put effort into it, but I do think that it will take some time to create a good document that will gain consensus. In the meantime, some companies will be putting out more than a few IPv6 capable phones / PDAs / etc without clear guidence. This is what I worry about. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
