Margaret, OK people want to keep trying.
> -----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: I would suggest a set for guidelines for the current 3GGP Release 5 vendors shipping IPv6 for that stated use and keep the focus of the document as limited as possible. The purpose of the doc is state which specifications "are most likely to be used" (NOT IMPLEMENTED) by a 3GGP Release 5 UMTS Cellular Host. VEry very specific. Note this is a use document not a what must, should, or may be implemented. It is truly an implementation guideline for Release 5. > > - 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. I suggest that if use the scope and method I state above then this is not necessary. What an overview should do is state in better and more words what I am suggesting above. Not only is not a standard but by its very nature its not even close to suggesting that in the document. > - The MUST, MAY, SHOULD... wording should be removed. I would keep them in another context why something will or will not be used in Release 5 and why it will or why not. The doc does this good enough for me now but I understand 3GPP implementation, how to build a 3GPP product, and the market needs for Rel 5. So I am at an advantage and may see more than others so a bit more words I can accept is needed if it must be reviewed by this working group. > - All conflicts with existing IPv6 standards should be > eliminated. This is a non issue with my approach the entire point is not in conflict. The conflict is that all the standards are not needed for this initial deployment at this time. > - The document should be re-worked to focus more on > referring cellular implementers to the correct > IPv6 standards. This is a shot at the authors and wrong. At least thats how I read it. The authors have the correct standards just saying they are all not needed for Rel 5. These authors are some of the most knowledgable people for 3GGP and IPv6 on the planet. Give them a break. This is not an issue no matter how this gets resolved. But this is the kind of tone that really wants me to influence these authors to take it out of the IETF and be done with this discussion. > - 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. The suggestion above is a recommendation of use not what is implemented on cellular hosts. John et al this is about as much as I will compromise from my view. If we can't get folks to buy into what I suggest or at least in between what I suggest and Magarets decree I strongly suggest to you that you will miss what we know is a time to market issue and you are better off working this through the ITU, 3GGP, and 3GGP2 and I will go there and am confident that others from here will too, to support you. regards, /jim > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
