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:
Should the WG publish an informational RFC detailing the IPv6
requirements for cellular hosts?
If so, how can we prevent the
Margaret,
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> Should the WG publish an informational RFC detailing the IPv6
> requirements
>
> 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:
> >
> >
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 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:
>
> Should the WG publish an informational RFC detailing the IPv6
> requirements for cellular h
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
Brian,
> 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.
Is your complaint that the document is Minimum IPv6 Requirements for
a Cellular Hosts? Are there probl
Hi Phil,
> > 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 the discussion is that creating hosts requirements for every kind
Margaret,
You had the below proposal:
> 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 " document for 3GPP links.
> - A general "IPv6 Node Requirements" document.
I would very much like to h
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 stan
Jari Arkko wrote:
> how long do you think producing the general document
> to an RFC will take? What should we say in the
> meantime to folks who want to deploy IPv6 now?
What if we make some revision to "draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host",
and run that as Informational? Then we could have IPv6 Hos
John,
I don't think there is problem with the content. I believe
the content needs to be separated. One part to discuss IPv6
operation over cellular links and one part to discuss the minimal
IPv6 functionality for hosts. The second part really belongs in
a general host requirements documen
[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 d
Hi John,
>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.
I don't belie
Hi Jari,
>I think most of
>us agree that a host requirements document is
>something that we should have and is a necessary
>one. If we had a general document I'm pretty sure
>there'd be no need for any specific XXX host
>requirements documents.
I hope that we do have agreement about this. Are
> If there are decisions as to what to do with ND/DAD/whatever,
> should those be made by (a) IPv6 WG, (b) 3GPP, or (c)
> vendors?
Jari,
I think the ND/DAD type issues can be dealt with by the IPv6 over foo
document which should be a lot quicker to produce than the host requirements
document.
> 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 " document for 3GPP links.
> - A general "IPv6 Node Requirements" document.
I think the above two documents make a lot of sense.
>Now, my concern is this:
>how long do you think producing the general document
>to an RFC will take? What should we say in the
>meantime to folks who want to deploy IPv6 now?
>If there are decisions as to what to do with ND/DAD/whatever,
>should those be made by (a) IPv6 WG, (b) 3GPP, or (c)
>ve
Erik Nordmark wrote:
>>If there are decisions as to what to do with ND/DAD/whatever,
>>should those be made by (a) IPv6 WG, (b) 3GPP, or (c)
>>vendors?
>>
>
> Jari,
>
> I think the ND/DAD type issues can be dealt with by the IPv6 over foo
> document which should be a lot quicker to produce than
Hi Margaret,
> Your document and your arguments have convinced me that we
> should publish a standard definition of the minimal requirements
> for an IPv6 node, an "IPv6 Node Requirements" document (or perhaps
> two documents, one for hosts and one for routers?). This should
> be a standards-t
> Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> >>If there are decisions as to what to do with ND/DAD/whatever,
> >>should those be made by (a) IPv6 WG, (b) 3GPP, or (c)
> >>vendors?
> >>
> >
> > Jari,
> >
> > I think the ND/DAD type issues can be dealt with by the
> IPv6 over foo
> > document which sh
Hi Charlie,
> > how long do you think producing the general document
> > to an RFC will take? What should we say in the
> > meantime to folks who want to deploy IPv6 now?
>
> What if we make some revision to "draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host",
> and run that as Informational? Then we could have IP
Hi Tony,
Hi Tony,
> Please don't take this as a personal attack, but you just
> don't get it.
What I suspect is that we are actually looking at the same problems,
from a different direction & thinking that a different way forward
is what is needed.
I completely agree with you that we should (
Hi Brian,
> I don't think there is problem with the content.
Thanks for the clarification - it hasn't always been entirely clear.
> I believe
> the content needs to be separated. One part to discuss IPv6
> operation over cellular links and one part to discuss the minimal
> IPv6 functi
Hi John,
> > What if we make some revision to "draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host",
> > and run that as Informational? Then we could have IPv6 Host
> > Requirements later on the standards track. We could even
> > have a later IPv6-over-3GPP standards track document which
> > would obsolete the Info
> I _do_ think that we need to do an "IPv6 over link of your choice>" document. This document should include
> everything that is really special about building hosts that
> talk on cellular links.
I agree. If I remember correctly that was also one of the things
that came out of the IPv6-3g
Hi Margaret,
> 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
>
> >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
Hello Margaret,
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 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
> implemen
e-
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:46 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt?
>
>
>
> Before folks go and do a lot of additional work to update
> draft-iet
/ implementation reqs in the IETF.
Thats fine though.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:17 AM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt
pdating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt?
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> >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
&g
ED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:13 PM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt?
>
>
>
> > I also think that we should start work on two standards-track
> > documents, both of whi
m: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 6:40 PM
> To: Jari Arkko
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt?
>
>
>
> >Now, my concern is this:
> >how long do you think producing the g
Phil,
I don't agree with your view at all. But below is important to the
decision IMO.
> 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
et Wasserman
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt?
>
>
>
> Hello Margaret,
>
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> > I've tried to explain this in other messages, but I don't
> > think that my
[Karim wrote:]
> I have a similar issue in mind.
>If we have an "IPv6 over Cellular links" draft would that also include
>some discussion on the rest e.g. security? That is, a security
>section specifically for cellular links? For example, when you use IPsec,
>IP header compression on the 3g link
Bound, Jim wrote:
> John et al. Bag this lets go build a cellular host consortia with
> vendors that want to ship and deploy IPv6 and build our use requirements
> out of here.
>
> Or we will be hacking on this in January 2003. It was a good thing to
> try but it might not work to do use / imp
Hello,
> 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 " document for 3GPP links.
> - A general "IPv6 Node Requirements" document.
I think some documents or at least descriptions
erman; Margaret Wasserman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt?
>
>
> Bound, Jim wrote:
>
>
> > John et al. Bag this lets go build a cellular host consortia with
> > vendors that want to ship and deploy IPv6 and build our use
39 matches
Mail list logo
