Hi Margaret, > 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).
Right now, there is nothing for 3GPP community to implement towards. Divining the relationships between relevant IPv6 RFCs (and drafts which are updates to RFCs) is not at all clear. Evaluating a number of commercial IPv6 stacks has shown that a large number of them are not compliant to many of the standards we are listing in our document. Our document does not intend to create any incompatibilities, and we want to ensure that there are not. I have already been suggesting that we can adjust the requirements in the document, so we don't introduce incompatibilities & this is why we have been asking for comments on the document, so that there are no incompatibilities. > 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? Well, are we considering Minimum Host Requirements or Host Requirements or Node Requirements? We have been trying to scope our document, however, there has been no scoping of what you have been proposing. > 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? I've always thought that we could do both, perhaps I am optimistic. > 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 don't know who you have been discussing with - but most radio-heads that I know (folks who have been implementing cellular stuff) are very unfamiliar with the IETF & standards. I've gotten A LOT of feedback from many different groups based upon our draft on how the ietf works, etc. Remember, most phones do not use a POSIX type of environment, and it will be a while before your average consumer mobile host will have anything resembling a socket. Personally, I don't think that I want such a thing on my general purpose phone. > 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. We have agreed that this work would be started in Salt Lake City. At least my understanding of the SLC Meeting was that our draft would become a WG document, work should be started on a general hosts document (I think I discussed with Ito-Jun and someone else about starting that at the meeting) and I think Jonne Soininen was interested in creating an "IPv6 over 3GPP" or something document. Jonne mentioned to me that the current 3GPP specs have settled enough that such a document could be started. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
