Hesham, I strongly disagree.
What is an IPv6 Hosts document going to tell us that we don't already know as implementors for IPv6? If its new requirements then we should write a draft on those requirements? I always hated the 1122 and 1123 restated the obvious to kernel OS implementors. I would argue the spec was good but it did not work in the market. What made implementations interoperable were bake-offs and learning to make the general TCP/IP specs work. Now for new requirements thats fine. We are trying to reduce the work load in the IETF not increase it? I don't see the business or technical benefit of using up the working groups energy with such a document. Maybe someone should write up what it would do and we should discuss that? I feel like we are urinating in the wind here. thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Hesham Soliman (ERA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:56 PM > To: 'Francis Dupont'; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino > Cc: Hesham Soliman (ERA); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: requirement for celllular IPv6 host draft > > > > A full implementation of IPv6 includes implementation of the > > > following extension headers: > > > > => this wording is unfortunate: what is a partial implementation > > of IPv6? > > > ' > PS: we definitely *need* an IPv6 host requirement document! > > => Yes ! > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
