Hi John,
> > However, I am concerned about how outside groups (specifically
> > the 3GPP) will interpret publishing this document, even as an
> > Informational RFC.
>
>I think that we can discuss if we need to add any clarifying text
>here. It could be as simple as this document is informational
>and should not override any standards documents. Please note
>that many of the authors of the document are also involved in
>the 3GPP standardization process.
It is possible that some sort of clarifying text could alleviate
some of my concerns.
However, this document does seem (at least to me) to contradict
some standards-based IPv6 documents. For instance, this document
indicates that some features are optional that are listed as
mandatory in other documents (IP Security, DAD, some types of ND
processing, etc.).
> > 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.
>
>Agreed, we've been talking about this since London, and all of the
>authors have volunteered to help on this effort. I think a IPv6
>Host Requirement document would be a very good thing.
I mostly agree. I do have some concerns about defining the host
requirements too early, before we have enough deployment experience
with complete IPv6 implementations to make wise choices. This may
be a chicken and egg issue, though -- how will we get "complete" IPv6
implementations before we define what that means?
>I don't share your doubts. I believe that we need this kind of
>document, as there will be IPv6 enabled phones being produced,
>probably this year. The networks are already being deployed.
>Should we not, then try to specify & give guidence on IPv6 - or
>should we do nothing?
I think that we should give guidance, and we have tried to do so
in other documents. However, I think that we need to be careful
not to give inconsistent or conflicting guidance. Specifically:
- We should not publish guidance for cellular vendors
that conflicts with our published standards.
If the standards are wrong (or fail to take
into account all of the cases), we should
correct them.
- The IPv6 WG may not be the correct group to provide
guidance regarding transition mechanisms. I
believe that the v6trans (or is it still ngtrans?)
WG should be responsible for publish advice on
the applicability of their mechanisms in
different environments.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
