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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:46:53 +0200

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 problems with the content?  Do you
agree or disagree with the intent of the document, which is to
provide guidence on what to implement on a cellular host &
what the applicability of those features are?

John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:57:00 -0500

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 document.

Brian