Subject: Applicability of draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:49:54 +0100 (CET)

I think part of the questions are around the applicability of the document.
The document doesn't seem to constrain this very much:

   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.

So unless "terminal" is a well-defined term in the IETF context this
seems to apply to e.g. a full-powered laptop with a PCMCIA radio card,
a cellular phone with a Java JVM that allows it to run downloaded
applications, and perhaps even a router with such an air interface.

  Erik

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:53:23 +0200

Hi Erik,

> > 	1) Closed 'phone' with no additional external interfaces, 
> > 	   limited software & upgradability.
> > 	2) PDA / phone, small device, small configuration ability,
> > 	   some ability to run extra applications, additional
> > 	   interfaces possible.
> > 	3) PCMCIA radio card on a full-powered laptop, with
> > 	   a commercial IP stack
> 
> I think making the above distinctions would help focus the discussion.

Then we will do this.

> 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.  
 
> > If this is useful, then we could then clarify in more detail the
> > difference between a 'host' and a 'router' - I do think that if
> > we try to cover both cases in a single draft, we will run into
> > trouble.  
> 
> The draft uses the term "terminal" which I think is defined in 3G.
> But does that definition explicitly say something about IP level stuff
> like host vs. router?

We've tried to limit the term 'terminal' for that point, it is not
an IETF term.  We tried to eliminate the use of the word 'terminal'
from the main body of the text, but a quick search seems to show
we haven't done a good job.  Perhaps we should define the term.

> Or will there soon be "mobile terminals" that have IP router 
> functionality?
> I suspect it makes sense to very clearly restrict the document to only
> be about terminals that have no router functionality.

Right now, in 3GPP specifications, there is not this possibility.
The market might do something else at some point (my visibility
isn't exactly clear on this point), but it has always been my
intention that terminals with IP router functionality should 
have seperate requirements, something I think most of the authors
are interested in specifying (in a seperate draft) after
this draft is done.

thanks,
John

---

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:01:55 -0500

> 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 guidance on.
 
> Right now, in 3GPP specifications, there is not this 
> possibility. The market might do something else at some point 
> (my visibility isn't exactly clear on this point), but it has 
> always been my intention that terminals with IP router 
> functionality should 
> have seperate requirements, something I think most of the 
> authors are interested in specifying (in a seperate draft) 
> after this draft is done.

Hmmm (again).  I guess I'm wondering what is to prevent the
terminal from having a router in it.  3gpp has agreed to update
the spec to assign a prefix, no?  What's to keep someone from
running routing protocols over the link?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:42:11 +0200

Hi Phil,

> kinds of devices that you'd like to be giving guidance on.

There will be many different types of devices, some will support
downloadable code, some will not.  Currently, I don't know if
the majority will be one sort or another.  Some folks will want
bells & wistles, some won't.  I prefer to turn java off when I 
browse the net ...

> running routing protocols over the link?

Again, we have never said that this won't happen, there are 
then quite a few additional issues to be tackled.  We're 
seperating the two functionalities.  For example, I don't
think a general host requirement document should address
routing either.

John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:35:51 +0200

Hi James,

[note: this discussion isn't really related to the task at hand ...]

> I think some 90% of the new cellphones, even low end, now have Java on
> them. 

Were would this be?  I do know that many companies are promoting this,
but some have not committed to it; very few phones are actually in
shops.

> But the last spec I saw for the Java MidP (the Java profile 
> that runs on a cell phone) did not have
> a way to open a socket. You could only go through a URL. 

For a while, that will be the way it is done.  It is doubtful that
users will be able to see sockets on most phones, even for a long time.
Don't think that most members of my family would really care to 
open a socket either.

John

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:34:58 -0500

Erik,

If the working group solves the applicability definition the problem is
in the small.

that would be good.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 4:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Applicability of draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt
> 
> 
>