Subject: RE: Updating draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt?

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:20:52 -0500

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 Informational document, if desirable.
> > Or, would that be IPv6-over-3.75G?
>
>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 think that one of the current sticking points in our discussion
>is that there is no IPv6 Host Requirements document.  If there
>was, we wouldn't have this problem.  Additionally, I think
>that a IPv6 Host Requirements document is extremely important,
>I will gladly put effort into it, but I do think that it will
>take some time to create a good document that will gain
>consensus.  

Why do you think that it will take more time to gain consensus
on the minimal IPv6 host requirements for a standards-based "IPv6
host requirements" effort, than it will to reach consensus on
the minimal IPv6 host requirements for an informational "cellular
hosts" effort?

Either way, we need to reach consensus on the minimal set of
specifications and features that comprise IPv6, right?

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?  

Or are you suggesting that we should publish a "cellular host
requirements" draft without going through the effort to get
full consensus on the actual minimal requirements for IPv6
hosts?  How would that work, and still avoid the "two camps"
concern that I raised above?

>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.

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?

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

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:21:23 -0800

Hello Margaret,

> all agree that the 3GPP community will treat this as a standard and

I got that part of your message, and I think the problem is
able to be avoided.  Maybe we should not have process discussions
here, but generally I feel that if we can't use the Informational
RFC mechanism as it was intended to be used, then something is
wrong.

> IPv6 nodes (cellular nodes and non-cellular nodes).

Then a good idea would be to make sure that the Informational
document does NOT contradict IPv6 standards track documents.
In my previous notes, I suggested some language that would be
useful to ensure that result, partially motivated by work done
elsewhere in the IETF.

> "informational" document is irresponsible.

But on the other hand we can easily imagine giving the document
thorough review and making responsible decisions about what belongs
in it.

> the minimal IPv6 host requirements for an informational "cellular

Then the Informational document should not be labeled "minimal".
Maybe IPv6-over-3GPP-PDP is the right name.  The reason that
it can be done faster, is because the discussion can be more
focussed.  I agree with you, that such a document should
not contain language contradicting the Draft Standard documents.
Right now, I don't know any reason that would force this result.

> specifications and features that comprise IPv6, right?

Determining what is "minimal" will take longer
than determining what is useful for 3GPP-over-PDP.

> should publish either document until we get it right.

Agreed -- but the time requirement for the focussed document
can be a lot shorter than a general document.  And, a lot of
work has already gone into it.

>                                                      If we

All else being equal, yes.  But, not all things are equal here.

> concern that I raised above?

That would be my suggestion.  It could work, because the Informational
document would not be interpreted as an broadly applicable "minimal"
draft.  In fact, by definition the "minimal" draft should have _fewer_
features than the IPv6-over-3GPP-PDP draft.  I think this is able
to be accomplished by (i) not contradicting IPv6 standards, and
(ii) focussing exactly on what PDP needs.  I am not a crusader,
nor even proponent, for PDP, since I think that was designed
without much attention given to connectionless traffic.  But I
am hopeful that we can get IPv6 deployed and functional ASAP;
that will happen faster if we have a responsible, compatible
story for 3GPP.

> everything that is really special about building hosts that

That could be the Informational document.

> link, from an IPv6 perspective?

The similarities are more numerous than the differences, from
the standpoint of IPv6, but I'm not sure whether there would be
one, or perhaps a very small single-digit number of them (like, 2).
Keep in mind that the total number of nodes conforming to either
one of 2 such documents could easily outnumber the entire current
IPv6 population.  Or, that the IPv6 implementation on such nodes
could be poorly done without appropriate Informational guidance,
giving IPv6 generally a bad name.  It could happen.

Regards,
Charlie P.