Subject: RE: Cellular host requirements, 01 & next steps

From: "Soininen Jonne (NET/MtView)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:28:25 -0500

Hello Andrew and Jari,

>However, there already is a design team in place
>in this WG to produce such improvement proposals.
>Are you aware of this effort? Design team, can
>you comment on how you are proceeding?

Yes, the design team is looking at this problem. I think we are about to
get ready in the near future, and the document will be out for WG to
comment. Thus, I do not think that the cellular requirements document
should address this issue.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 5:14 PM
To: Delecki Andrew-Y10658; 'Jari Arkko'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Cellular host requirements, 01 & next steps

RE: Cellular host requirements, 01 & next stepsHi Andrew,

> Appendix A of the draft, uses text from 3GPP TS
> 23.060, Clause 9.2.1.1 without any criticism.

Yes we do reference the current 3GPP specs. We
are also quite aware of the criticism of the specs, and
we support the process on making the 3GPP specifications
better.

However, there already is a design team in place
in this WG to produce such improvement proposals.
Are you aware of this effort? Design team, can
you comment on how you are proceeding?

But back to our draft. The 3GPP specifications come
in "Releases", and the improvements affect only the future
releases, not the old ones. Also, appendix A
is there for information - to avoid the need to find the
3GPP specs - and to allow us to explain the special
case under 2.5.1 and 2.6.1. (We propably should
have made clearer that there's a difference to the
IPv6 standard way.)

The purpose of our draft is primarily to describe
what cellular hosts in general need to do wrt
IPv6. In addition to this, we want to provide
concrete examples on particular cellular
networks and their problems, insofar as that
information exists today. The example part is
more like "here's how your run IPv6 on X" rather
than "let's design the best possible Y to run
IPv6".

However, you are right in the sense that 
we should propably more clearly highlight the
issue in the draft, and indicate that the
specific examples that apply to 3GPP are
relevant for a particular version (Release 99),
and future versions may have a different situation.

Hope this clarifies the situation,

Jari

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------