I don't know about others but I don't support what your ammenable to.
Your watering it down.

I don't want it watered down.

Do it out of the IETF.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:59 PM
> To: Charles E. Perkins
> Cc: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Should DAD be optional? [Was
> draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?]
> 
> 
> 
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to