> > If we delay things further we're just going to end up with 3gpp > > people going off and doing their own thing as Jim pointed out. > > Threatening to go away and do the wrong thing as a > justification to do > the wrong thing here is a waste of time.
So far I haven't seen your proof that there's something technically wrong. Rather claiming I'm threatening to go away and do the wrong thing is a waste of time when we could be discussing the technical issues. > > > I hope we can make sure this doesn't happen. You want us to > > consider a router on the other end of a cellular link when we > > don't even have a minimum host requirements document. How can that > > make sense? Let's do one thing at a time, hosts first, and ensure > > that we'll have compatibility. > > I have been very consistent in that I want you to describe the > characteristics of the link. The device on the end could be either a > host or router, but the current focus on limited capability hosts is > preventing progress. The micro-handset *IS NOT SPECIAL*, so just get > over it. What you need is a standard way of using a link that has > different characteristics than other link technologies > already defined. Great, but then what is wrong with what I've been saying? One thing is the cellular link, the other is the minimum host requirements. We've already said that an IPv6 over cellular link doc was a good idea and something has been started. But without a minimum host requirements we'll go nowhere towards deployment. That is what can really delay things and cause problems. In the host requirements doc we won't consider routers of course. > I am not against making progress on a document that can be > used for 3G > host deployments. I just can't see any real need to special case this > and limit the long term potential of the link just because > some people > thought time-to-market was more important than doing it right. Well, we're both on the same side then since we want to make progress on docs enabling 3G host deployment. However how the 3gpp v6 link works is specified in 3gpp. Is that what you are arguing against? /Karim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
