Hi John,
> > 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've tried to explain this in other messages, but I don't think that my reasons are coming across... If we publish this document as "informational" now, I think we all agree that the 3GPP community will treat this as a standard and implement to it. This raises one serious, immediate problem. This document contradicts things in IPv6 standards track documents. As a result, we may end up with two subtly incompatible "camps" of IPv6 nodes (cellular nodes and non-cellular nodes). Since we know that this document will be treated as a standard, giving it a cursory review and hurrying to publish it as an "informational" document is irresponsible. >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. Why do you think that it will take more time to gain consensus on the minimal IPv6 host requirements for a standards-based "IPv6 host requirements" effort, than it will to reach consensus on the minimal IPv6 host requirements for an informational "cellular hosts" effort? Either way, we need to reach consensus on the minimal set of specifications and features that comprise IPv6, right? Getting this right will take time, and I don't think that we should publish either document until we get it right. If we are going to undertake this effort, wouldn't you rather emerge with a standards-based host requirements document than with an informational cellular-specific document? Or are you suggesting that we should publish a "cellular host requirements" draft without going through the effort to get full consensus on the actual minimal requirements for IPv6 hosts? How would that work, and still avoid the "two camps" concern that I raised above? >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. Yes. They will be doing it based on the IPv6 standards. We've worked on those standards for years, subjected them to multiple rounds of scrutiny, and they have been implemented by many vendors. None of us would say they are perfect, but they are the best information we have about how to build compatible, compliant IPv6 hosts. I _do_ think that we need to do an "IPv6 over <name the cellular link of your choice>" document. This document should include everything that is really special about building hosts that talk on cellular links. One question: Are there enough differences between different cellular link types that we will need more than one of these documents? Or is there, effectively, a single type of cellular link, from an IPv6 perspective? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
