John, For years I used to fight that all specs in the IETF should have rationale appendices as in the IEEE. But no one wants to do the work.
Your being overly optimistic if you believe what you ask is achievable. I don't think the wordage for actual protocol operation is arbitrary for the technologies I have worked on in the IETF for 9 years. But I do think the policy is and often who yells the loudest or a default that is less than optimal and no one implements it the same for policy then. That is the part that is arbitrary I say as IMO (IMO not IMHO I will not be humble anymore in this community it don't work). Your also correct about implementations as we track that very carefully in the IPv6 Forum and what I believe is happening is folks are implementing what they can "sell" and will be deployed first. I think IPsec is picking up steam especially around more mission critical early adoption deployment. Me telling a lady I want to have dinner with her on my 3GGP IPv6 cell phone is simply not mission critical (well hopefully :---)) And I also don't care if its secure either and don't want IPsec slowing down my phone connection to the lady :-----------) I think it may be we who really care about real IPv6 deployment take this to a new consortia and send it to 3GPP or send it in directly to 3GPP and have them put it as reqs in an appendix and by pass this totally non productive process for this topic. I do think reducing the scope in title to "current 3GGP UMTS celluar hosts" would be a good political and technical move. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:54 AM > To: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Should DAD be optional? [Was > draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?] > > > Hi Jim, > > > I think all vendors will provide option to disable DAD and take the > > risk. > > > > The IETF specs are not like laws where they can really be > > enforced. If a customer and set of vendors have a good reason to > > not use a MUST in a spec they will for business reasons. And there > > is not a thing the IETF can do about it. > > Actually, I think what we (the IETF) should do about it is create > specifications which explain what the reason for the specification > is used for, and under what circumstances optimizations may be useful. > This is actually what one of intentions has been for the > Cellular Hosts > document. > > In discussing RFCs with non-IETF folks, some of the requirements > in RFCs can seem to be rather arbitrary. > > thanks, > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
