Phil, I don't agree with your view at all. But below is important to the decision IMO.
> Which raises a question - if all these vendors are capable > of building interoperable hosts and routers, what is the > big concern about the cellular handset vendors - other than > the subtle and specific differences of communicating over > specifically the 3gpp defined interfaces? The danger seems > not that they will implement too much, but that they will > implement too little. The doc seems to want to give > permission to skip required v6 features which is not something > this WG should bless. I have to agree if the doc is saying an IPv6 implementation should not implement everything and it has an IETF RFC. Not for technical reasons or I think it bad. But because I am practical and know our community. This would not see the light of day politically and that is just the way it is. I strongly suggest we who care (again) just submit this to 3GPP and end this IETF discussion. As to node reqs for IPv6. Thats an important discussion but I will argue I have all those reqs as a vendor and implementor currently in our specs. I will implement those that will be wanted by customers and for the product set supporting them. Thats what this is really all about and we may have headed down the wrong path back at the seattle meeting. The reason I say this is that we cannot control IPv6 deployment in the IETF for any market and in particular 3GPP. Also as you stated 3GPP2 has different reqs than 3GPP. regards, /jim > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
