Subject: RE: Should connecting to the Internet be Optional?

From: "Karim El-Malki (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 21:13:47 +0100

> 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 the
 > other interface some of these optimizations don't make sense.
 > 
 > The Mobile IPv6 related specifications for the time being
 > only make sense with such a dual network interface capable
 > device, which means the optimizations recommended on the cell
 > facing interface in many cases SHOULDN'T be recommended on
 > the other interfaces.

The cellular host requirements draft is only aimed at minimum
cellular host functionality. So if a host has a DSL interface this
draft doesn't apply to it. I believe this is already an assumption
of the current draft. If instead you have multiple wireless
interfaces it would apply.

/Karim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:05:42 -0800

> interfaces it would apply.

So this points out that 1) the document doesn't define 'cellular host',
and 2) that 'assumptions' of the authors are not always obvious to the
reader. A host must conform to specific requirements and mixing or
adding different interface types doesn't change that. In this example,
when a DSL interface got added to a 3G handset does it suddenly change
from a 'cellular host' to something else? If so which rules apply?

The document is fundamentally flawed because it is focused on a target
product, the micro-3G handset. If it gets rewritten to focus on unique
exceptions for the cellular air-link that are strictly about addressing
the problems that arise from its characteristics, it MAY be worthy of a
WG last call.

Tony