Hello Margaret,
Margaret Wasserman wrote: > 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. I got that part of your message, and I think the problem is able to be avoided. Maybe we should not have process discussions here, but generally I feel that if we can't use the Informational RFC mechanism as it was intended to be used, then something is wrong. > 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). Then a good idea would be to make sure that the Informational document does NOT contradict IPv6 standards track documents. In my previous notes, I suggested some language that would be useful to ensure that result, partially motivated by work done elsewhere in the IETF. > 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. But on the other hand we can easily imagine giving the document thorough review and making responsible decisions about what belongs in it. > 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? Then the Informational document should not be labeled "minimal". Maybe IPv6-over-3GPP-PDP is the right name. The reason that it can be done faster, is because the discussion can be more focussed. I agree with you, that such a document should not contain language contradicting the Draft Standard documents. Right now, I don't know any reason that would force this result. > Either way, we need to reach consensus on the minimal set of > specifications and features that comprise IPv6, right? Determining what is "minimal" will take longer than determining what is useful for 3GPP-over-PDP. > Getting this right will take time, and I don't think that we > should publish either document until we get it right. Agreed -- but the time requirement for the focussed document can be a lot shorter than a general document. And, a lot of work has already gone into it. > 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? All else being equal, yes. But, not all things are equal here. > 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? That would be my suggestion. It could work, because the Informational document would not be interpreted as an broadly applicable "minimal" draft. In fact, by definition the "minimal" draft should have _fewer_ features than the IPv6-over-3GPP-PDP draft. I think this is able to be accomplished by (i) not contradicting IPv6 standards, and (ii) focussing exactly on what PDP needs. I am not a crusader, nor even proponent, for PDP, since I think that was designed without much attention given to connectionless traffic. But I am hopeful that we can get IPv6 deployed and functional ASAP; that will happen faster if we have a responsible, compatible story for 3GPP. > 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. That could be the Informational document. > 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? The similarities are more numerous than the differences, from the standpoint of IPv6, but I'm not sure whether there would be one, or perhaps a very small single-digit number of them (like, 2). Keep in mind that the total number of nodes conforming to either one of 2 such documents could easily outnumber the entire current IPv6 population. Or, that the IPv6 implementation on such nodes could be poorly done without appropriate Informational guidance, giving IPv6 generally a bad name. It could happen. Regards, Charlie P. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
