Info RFC is NOT a STANDARDS track doc. So if its info do you still have a problem. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt? > > > > Hi John, > > >I am having a hard time understanding what your objections > >to the document are. You have raised some good technical > >points & we are looking at how to address them & revise > >the document. However, you seem to be saying now that the > >technical issues are not important. > > I don't believe that the technical issues that you have > raised are unimportant. I think that they are very important -- > important enough that they should be addressed in standards-track > documents. > > But, I don't think that this document is in quite the right > form to move on to the standards track as written, and I don't > think that it makes sense to publish it as an informational > document. > > Your document and your arguments have convinced me that we > should publish a standard definition of the minimal requirements > for an IPv6 node, an "IPv6 Node Requirements" document (or perhaps > two documents, one for hosts and one for routers?). This should > be a standards-track document, not an informational one, and I > think that your document would serve as an excellent starting > point for this work. > > It is important that the minimal host requirements of IPv6 be > applicable to low-end systems, such as cell phones, and that > should be reflected in our general IPv6 node requirements effort. > > However, I don't think that we want to have a fragmented set > of informational host requirements documents with different > requirements for different IPv6 application spaces (cellular hosts > vs network appliances vs. home gateways vs. car infotainment > equipment, etc.). If I'm missing some reason why cellular > hosts are special, that explains why they would need an > informational requirements document (when other applications > would not), please explain. > > Most of the things that make the hosts you've discussed unique > are related to the fact that they run over a specific link > type. In my opinion, these differences, and the behaviour that > is required because of them, should be captured in a link-specific > standards-track "IPv6 over <foo>" document, such as "IPv6 > over 3GPP PDP Contexts". This document could be based on > portions of your current document. > > Of course, I don't personally get to decide what the IPv6 > WG publishes. I'm just voicing my opinion... > > > > 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?] > > > >If the draft can go through the process of becoming an > >RFC, with work group consensus, etc. what is the problem? > > Well, this is the process of trying to find that consensus. > > Consensus on publishing an RFC doesn't just mean that no one can > find any technical problems with the contents. It also means > getting the consensus of the WG and the IESG that a document is > needed in this area, and that publishing that document would be > useful. > > I have voiced technical issues with the document AND reasons > why I thnk the WG may not want to publish this specific document as > an Informational RFC, even if the technical issues were addressed. > > > > - Everyone with an agenda attempting to publish a > > > similar document for their "special" > > > category of IPv6 host? [Can we just say 'no'?] > > > >Of course, I do think that you are being very unfair in > >this statement. Most of the authors are IETF participants, > >not 3GPP participants. We have no 'agenda' - or at > >least no more than your average IETF participant. > > I can see how you interpreted my comments this way, but this > isn't what I meant... > > I don't think that the authors of this draft have an "agenda" > (in the negative connotation sense) that runs contrary to the > interests of the IETF, IPv6 or any related work. > > I meant "agenda" more in the sense of "focus" or "area of > interest". > > There are a lot of people involved in the IETF (myself included) > who have a strong interest in making sure that IPv6 is applicable > for certain types of uses. This is a positive thing, because > we often have a lot of technical knowledge about those environments, > and we can add to the quality and wide applicability of IPv6 by > reviewing documents and representing our differing perspectives. > > However, I don't think that the WG should publish a number of > different informational RFCs, representing all of these different > positions regarding what the minimal contents of IPv6 should be for > each type of application. Instead, we should bring all of our > knowledge and skills together to write a single standards- > based "IPv6 Node Requirements" document that defines what the > minimal requirements are for all IPv6 nodes. > > >This > >is not 3GPP trying to push anything in the IETF. Also, > >I really don't think that involving a more diverse set > >of participants in the IETF is a bad thing. I think > >we ought to encourage more direct participation in the > >IETF rather than less. Do you feel it is a problem if > >folks from the FOO SDO starting participating in the IETF, > >and functioning under IETF rules? I really could not > >find a problem with that. > > No, I have no problem with that at all! In fact, I'd like > to see even more of it. > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
