Hi Jim,
Thanks for your support. >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. The design team has discussed this, and we think that this document should be published as an informational RFC. It is important that this be published as an RFC, so that it can live longer than six months, but the document itself does not contain any standards or practices -- just informational recommendations to another standards body. >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. I agree that we should not make any specific recommendations regarding 3GPP supporting these things. However, the 3GPP standards should allow laptops that do support these things to be attached via 3GPP handsets. As the 3GPP standards exist today, a laptop that uses privacy addresses for web connections may not be able to access the web when attached via a 3GPP handset. We tried to make this distinction clear in the document, but it may not be clear enough. Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
