Hello Thomas, You seem to be concerned that if we change this value in the base Mobile IPv6 specification, then suddenly it won't make as much sense to change it or otherwise specify it in a future ND document. I think that it patently untrue. So, I strongly believe that we can have a good base Mobile IPv6 specification that works, without impeding future progress on more general ND solutions. Why not?
Thomas Narten wrote: > Charlie, > > > I am particularly concerned that we have a Mobile IPv6 specification > > that, when implemented, gives sensible results. Eliminating the possibility > > for having faster router advertisements does not give sensible > > results. > > Noone is arguing that the possibility for having faster RA should be > eliminated, at least as far as I know. Then let's keep a sentence in the specification that makes this plain. It would not impede progress on ND. > It is not, IMO, critical that these changes be in the same document as > the base MIPv6 spec. It is critical for the one change for frequency of router advertisement. > What is important that these ND changes become an > RFC within a reasonable amount of time, so that those that implement > MIPv6 also pick up the ND changes in the same general time frame. I > see no reason why this can't happen within 6 months. I think 6 days would be better for the particular point about router advertisement. I'm classifying that differently, because it is required for sensible implementations. If you want that one in a separate document, then I can have it for you on Saturday. I'm concerned, though, that the document would be viewed as a place to put other things that aren't so plainly required. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
