The members of the IESG and IAB and the IETF chair are selected
by a nominations committee made up of volunteers from the
IETF community. The nominations committee is now in the process
of being formed and volunteers are being accepted until Sep 6.
Please see (http://www.ietf.org/nomcom/msg19765
Folks,
this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere at the point. Perhaps
we
can drop it?
The decision of MUST/SHOULD is up to the working group to recommend in
its
spec, and Jari will reflect that decision when he produces the final spec.
The consensus that has been recorded so fa
When the next version of the draft is issued, incorporating
all the agreed resolutions of WG last call comments, we'll
post a note to the ipng mailing list summarizing the requirements
that the MIP WG is recommending.
Phil
> -Original Message-
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
A few issues have become mingled here.
1) Keiichi and others have raised the issue of MUST support for HAO
and BE processing and have proposed a solution that allows communication
to happen between any two nodes with clarification in the MIP spec of
properly handling the ICMP errors returned.
2)
> >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 thi
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Applicability of draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> There will be m
>
> > BTW: Does 1) include the ability to run e.g. Java applets or
> > other downloadable code?
>
> I think we would clasify it as closed, no applets or
> downloadable code.
Hmmm. I think you've excluded a large number (the majority) of the
kinds of devices that you'd like to be giving guid
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 4:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Should connecting to the Internet be Optional?
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> > May
Sure.
"For the purposes of this document, a cellular host is considered to
be a terminal that uses an air interface to connect to a cellular
access network (i.e. GPRS, UMTS, CDMA2000) in order to provide IPv6
connectivity to an IP network."
As others have pointed out it's hard to be
>
> I don't think we should. It just starts us down that
> slippery slope of creating new "foo hosts" requirements docs.
> Your following arguments are reason enough to avoid this path.
Agree we shouldn't.
>
> >
> > If so, how can we prevent the two most likely bad outcomes:
> >
> >
>
> If WLAN works differently from a cellular interface then it
> needs separate consideration (maybe another draft). So this
> draft wouldn't apply to interfaces for which cellular
> requirements are not meaningful. But I'm not sure that
> defining multiple technology hosts is the most urge
> -Original Message-
> From: Karim El-Malki (ERA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:14 PM
> To: 'Phil Roberts'; 'Tony Hain'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Should connecting to the Internet be Optional?
>
>
>
Well, this needs to be spelled out in some detail then. I'm already
mentally thinking of PocketPC kinds of devices whenever I here
cellular hosts
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Having read through this thread now, might it be better to
recast this document more along the lines of functions
supported on the cellular interface rather than requirements
for host? Some substantial number of devices for which this
is targeted will be dual network interface capable and for th
I'm a little bit concerned about the mobility sections of this
doc. It recommends supporting two drafts that are far from complete
in the MIP working group (HMIP and fast handovers) and where it's hard
to say exactly how those drafts will dome out. I'm also not
sure how fast handovers would be
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:31 PM
> To: 'Phil Roberts'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Proxy announcement !
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> I'm not an "official" author of the draft but let me
> address a couple of your points below
Hi,
I have a bunch of comments on the document inline which I'll send to the
authors offlist to
avoid clutter. But I have some general comments for the list. Something
like this is definitely
needed and for multiple purposes so good job for making a start of it.
1. What is the intention of t
17 matches
Mail list logo
