JIm, First I agree with you technically. This is the right direction and matches the keep-it-simple approach that is needed.
I'm not sure it should even be BCP. Effectively this is a liaison document to another organisation - I think we would normally publish it as Informational. Of course if 3GPP indicated that they want to cite it as a normative reference, we might reclassify it. So it is a good idea to write it in the style of a BCP, in any case. Brian Jim Bound wrote: > > Hi Margaret, > > Had time to read this spec in more detail. Very well written and good > integration of IP with 3GPP details for recommendations. Design team > should be proud of this spec and it is very useful to both the IP and 3GPP > implementation communities which will overlap. > > I do think this should be working group item per all the health warnings > in the spec that this is a **recommendation** but should be on BCP track > not standards track is my feeling. > > Specific comments: > > 1. I support ALL recommendations of feature supports for IPv6 in handsets > and UE's. It is imperative that the principle of a cohesive code base for > IPv6 from non-3GPP implementation be useful and as bug for bug compatible > with wireline IPv6 implementations. This will also permit 3GPP > implementations to use expediently the future IPv6 extensions as they are > developed and permit a better sharing of implementation and > interoperability between IPv6 wireline services with 3GPP services. > > 2. On /64 I support this. 3GPP implementations should be able to > suppo0rt /64 and IMO /128 if necessary not doing so is short sighted for > 3GPP implementations. > > 3. I do not think we should spend time in the IPv6 WG discussing how, > what, or why 3GPP should support our indirect IPv6 policies (e.g. Site > Local, Privacy, Use Models) for IPv6. This will be counter productive > for the working group and hold up forwarding a technical recommendation. > The policy used and supported by the 3GPP standards process and > implementation community is their business and not ous here in the IETF > standards process. For individuals or social views here that have policy > input for 3GPP please go directly to 3GPP with that input is my > suggestion. This will permit us to wrap this up quickly and not spend > years working on it in the IETF. > > I think we need to do same work for 3GPP2 in addition to 3GPP. > > I have no issue with the technical recommendations and they should be sent > to 3GPP as soon as possible from this community. > > Again go BCP route not standards track. > > Good job and thanks > > /jim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
