Re: [16NG] Resolutions to issues raised during 2nd WGLC of I-D draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-04 [2]

gabriel montenegro wrote:
> Alex,
> 
> DJ Jonhston already clarified this in his email on Dec. 20.
> Extracting from that message:
> 
> "However the establishment of IP connectivity described in the
> network entry in 802.16 has nothing to do with the IP connectivity we
> are dealing with in 16ng."

That is indeed a strong statement about the extent of differences
between the 802.16 network entry procedure and the IP connectivity we
(who's we) dealing with in 16ng.

But I wouldn't see any clearer by that statement.

If there were an amendment to the 802.16 spec saying that the SMC (2ry
mgmt connect'n) is discarded and that IPv6 RS/RA happens on a transport
connection then yes, it would have been a clarification.

Actually, I don't know to what extent can _any_ statement made in this
draft (IPv6-overIPv6CS), of which this RS/RA transport connection is but
one, can over-ride the 802.16 statements.  I personally thought the
draft can only suggest things to the 802.16 document, not plain over-riding.

Alex

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng