John,
Since I have already voiced an agreement with Margaret's
suggestion, let me explain my rationale. Your document is a
mix of:
1. Host requirements (granted they are limited functionality hosts)
2. IPv6 over cellular links requirements
I believe that #2 is important as a standalone document. But #1
belongs in a general host requirements document. In Margaret's
proposal, your doc would be the genesis of two new docs that solve
bigger needs for the WG. The technical suggestions made can simply
be included in the new drafts.
Regards,
Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Margaret,
>
> > Before folks go and do a lot of additional work to update
> > draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt based on our discussions,
> > I think we have to answer a fundamental question:
>
> I am having a hard time understanding what your objections
> to the document are. You have raised some good technical
> points & we are looking at how to address them & revise
> the document. However, you seem to be saying now that the
> technical issues are not important.
>
> > Should the WG publish an informational RFC detailing the IPv6
> > requirements for cellular hosts?
>
> Is the issue the title of the document. If the draft were
> titled 'Applicability of IPv6 for Cellular Hosts' -
> would that make a difference?
>
> > If so, how can we prevent the two most likely bad outcomes:
> >
> > - 3GPP (or other) folks thinking that this document
> > is an IETF standard? [May be handled by
> > a strongly worded disclaimer in the document?]
>
> If the draft can go through the process of becoming an
> RFC, with work group consensus, etc. what is the problem?
>
> > - Everyone with an agenda attempting to publish a
> > similar document for their "special"
> > category of IPv6 host? [Can we just say 'no'?]
>
> Of course, I do think that you are being very unfair in
> this statement. Most of the authors are IETF participants,
> not 3GPP participants. We have no 'agenda' - or at
> least no more than your average IETF participant. This
> is not 3GPP trying to push anything in the IETF. Also,
> I really don't think that involving a more diverse set
> of participants in the IETF is a bad thing. I think
> we ought to encourage more direct participation in the
> IETF rather than less. Do you feel it is a problem if
> folks from the FOO SDO starting participating in the IETF,
> and functioning under IETF rules? I really could not
> find a problem with that.
>
> > I also think that we should start work on two standards-track
> > documents, both of which would use the current draft as
> > input:
> >
> > - An "IPv6 over <foo>" document for 3GPP links.
> > - A general "IPv6 Node Requirements" document.
>
> My suggestion would be that we work on these documents:
>
> - The current document
> - General IPv6 host Requirements
> - General IPv6 node requirements (mixture of routing + host functions).
>
> I think that we may want to consider making the current document more
> of an applicability statement or something along those lines.
>
> John
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
