I don't think we need a general nodes reqs document. Isn't that what standards are for? If we cannot be reasonable to get specific node docs done quickly here and shipped then we should not do them or do them and implementors will go do them elsewhere.
/jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:46 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt? > > > > Before folks go and do a lot of additional work to update > draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt based on our discussions, > I think we have to answer a fundamental question: > > Should the WG publish an informational RFC detailing the IPv6 > requirements for cellular hosts? > > If so, how can we prevent the two most likely bad outcomes: > > - 3GPP (or other) folks thinking that this document > is an IETF standard? [May be handled by > a strongly worded disclaimer in the document?] > - Everyone with an agenda attempting to publish a > similar document for their "special" > category of IPv6 host? [Can we just say 'no'?] > > 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. > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
