I do think that this document includes interesting and useful
information about the perspective of cellular handset vendors,
and the technical requirements and issues for cellular handsets.
Within the IETF, therefore, it might be useful to publish this
document as an Informational RFC.
However, I am concerned about how outside groups (specifically
the 3GPP) will interpret publishing this document, even as an
Informational RFC.
Hesham's comment illustrates my concern...
>I don't know if someone already answered this,
>but I believe the agreement in SLC was to progress
>the cellular host draft independantly, mainly because
>of the very close 3GPP deadline.
How are we expecting the 3GPP to use this document? Why is
it needed for a 3GPP deadline?
Will outside groups believe that this document represents a
consensus of the IPv6 WG regarding what the minimal requirements
actually are for an IPv6 cellular host? If so, I don't think that
we should publish this document without a more significant discussion
within the WG.
It is not my impression that the WG has reached consensus on some
of the issues raised in this document, specifically:
- Forbidding the use of DAD on some links
- Situation where IP Security should be optional/disabled
(and the who distinction between "Core IP" and
"IP Security")
- Making ND optional on point-to-point links
- Making IPv6 autoconfiguration optional on hosts (rather
than mandatory on hosts and turned on/off for the
link in router advertisements)
Also, some of the comments in this document might best be handled
as "applicability" portions of other documents (i.e. use of 6to4
over a cellular link), rather than as specific requirements for
a class of hosts.
I do think that the WG will need to do some work on defining the
official contents of IPv6, including the minimal requirements for
IPv6 nodes (or hosts and routers), but this will probably require
a considerable effort, and a good deal of negotiation within the
WG and with the IESG.
I am concerned that we may bypass this effort, to our later detriment,
by publishing a document now that is mistakenly interpretted as a
standards-track host requirements document by outside groups.
Does anyone else share this concern? What are our options to
ensure that this doesn't happen?
Margaret
At 05:16 AM 3/3/02 , Hesham Soliman (ERA) wrote:
>Margaret,
>
>I don't know if someone already answered this,
>but I believe the agreement in SLC was to progress
>the cellular host draft independantly, mainly because
>of the very close 3GPP deadline.
>
>Cheers,
>Hesham
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:53 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Juha,
> >
> > What type of last call are you proposing? Do you think that this
> > document should become an informational RFC? Or do you think it
> > should be on the standards track?
> >
> > It was my impression that we (the WG) were hoping to move
> > towards a more general "node requirements" document, using this
> > document as (one of) the input(s).
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> > At 07:28 AM 2/28/02 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > >We "cellular host IPv6" draft authors believe that our draft
> > >
> > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-cellula
>r-host-00.txt
> >
> >would be ready for wg last call.
> >
> >Bob and Steve, if there are no objections from the WG,
> >could you please consider announcing last call for this draft?
> >
> >Thank You.
> >
> >On behalf of all the authors,
> > Juha Wiljakka
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
