Margaret Wasserman wrote: > 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.
Interestingly, that was roughly in line what we were *trying* to do. Could discuss exact title but still... > - All conflicts with existing IPv6 standards should be > eliminated. This is almost right, but I would still allow for the *possibility* that the WG now thinks something even if when it published something else earlier. Conditional on WG consensus on the particular issue of course, and there should be an explicit description in the document that explains why there is a discrepancy. > - 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. Again, this seems pretty obvious and has been our intent all along. Naturally we have put some proposals on the table on various recommendations as a starting point and presented our reasoning, but like the work in all IETF WGs, the WG gets to decide. And I see a lot of good discussion on the various recommendations, so I'm hopeful some concensus will appear on them. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
