> I have no problem with the words in your note, but then you > have to rename the draft to be "IPv6-over-nearterm-3G", or > better, "IPv6-over-3GPPr5-PDP". That gets the point across. > > If it's "IPv6-over-cellular", then you have to write > the specification to apply to ALL cellular systems, current > and future. That was the point in my note you quoted.
=> Basically we're saying similar things in different ways. My note (hasn't made it to the list yet) said that we addressed both of the above in the draft. The secions titled 'X function in 3GPP' address the specifics. It seems that there is some confusion about whether cellular == 3GPP. That's certainly not the case as it is explicitly stated in the draft. So I do see the case for 2 documents, but the important issue right now is to have some agreement on the technical content, then decide if it should be split into more than one document. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
