I'd be amenable some sort of "guidelines" document that offers
some guidance to 3GPP vendors on which portions of which IPv6
specifications should be implemented in cellular hosts. With
the following characteristics:
- The document should clearly state that it is not
a standard, and that it doesn't modify any
other standards. I know that "informational"
status implies this, but I think it should
be explicit in the document.
- The MUST, MAY, SHOULD... wording should be removed.
- All conflicts with existing IPv6 standards should be
eliminated.
- The document should be re-worked to focus more on
referring cellular implementers to the correct
IPv6 standards.
- We should not recommend anything that we don't
agree with -- for instance, if we think that
IP Sec should be included in all IPv6 hosts,
this document shouldn't say otherwise.
Margaret
At 03:01 PM 3/6/02 , Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>"Bound, Jim" wrote:
>
> > UNLESS: We go back to what informational means as Charlie and I believe
> > as it used to be?
> >
> > I doubt that is possible.
>
>Well, it's worth a shot, and the draft could include enough
>text to make it obvious what is meant. That would only make
>a difference to people who bother to even glance at the document,
>but anybody implementing the platform would be likely to see it,
>and any marketing literature would probably not risk the black
>eye of provably misconstruing the document.
>
>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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
