> >That could be one way forward. What would the downside to this be? > > I've tried to explain this in other messages, but I don't > think that my reasons are coming across... > > If we publish this document as "informational" now, I think we > all agree that the 3GPP community will treat this as a > standard and implement to it. > > This raises one serious, immediate problem. This document > contradicts things in IPv6 standards track documents. As a > result, we may end up with two subtly incompatible "camps" of > IPv6 nodes (cellular nodes and non-cellular nodes). > > Since we know that this document will be treated as a > standard, giving it a cursory review and hurrying to publish > it as an "informational" document is irresponsible.
I hear you and agree with you that this is a valid concern. <snip> > Getting this right will take time, and I don't think that we > should publish either document until we get it right. If we > are going to undertake this effort, wouldn't you rather emerge > with a standards-based host requirements document than with an > informational cellular-specific document? Also agree. > > >In the meantime, some companies will be putting > >out more than a few IPv6 capable phones / PDAs / etc without clear > >guidence. This is what I worry about. > > Yes. They will be doing it based on the IPv6 standards. > We've worked on those standards for years, subjected them to > multiple rounds of scrutiny, and they have been implemented by > many vendors. None of us would say they are perfect, but > they are the best information we have about how to build > compatible, compliant IPv6 hosts. Which raises a question - if all these vendors are capable of building interoperable hosts and routers, what is the big concern about the cellular handset vendors - other than the subtle and specific differences of communicating over specifically the 3gpp defined interfaces? The danger seems not that they will implement too much, but that they will implement too little. The doc seems to want to give permission to skip required v6 features which is not something this WG should bless. > > I _do_ think that we need to do an "IPv6 over <name the > cellular link of your choice>" document. This document > should include > everything that is really special about building hosts that > talk on cellular links. > > One question: Are there enough differences between different > cellular link types that we will need more than one of these > documents? Or is there, effectively, a single type of > cellular link, from an IPv6 perspective? One big difference between the 3gpp architecture and the 3gpp2 architecture is that 3gpp2 uses Mobile IP for all mobility management and 3gpp uses it for nothing really (although one could do internetwork mobility with a second interface). 3gpp2 is not that far down the IP v6 path yet, I believe, to be able to say much of significance about specific concerns they may have. At least that is my perception, perhaps someone involved with that effort could clarify. Phil Phil > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
