RE: [16NG] Call for WG adoption: draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-01

I am generally in favor of adopting an IPv4CS document along these
lines.

I do have some questions on the subnet model being specified:

1. Is the statement (section 6) that each MS "will be" in a different
subnet meant to be interpreted as normative or optional? Why not use the
appropriate SHALL, SHOULD, or whatever term is appropriate? 

2. What is the size of the specified per-MS subnet? Is it up to the
implementation?

Regards,
Paolo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@samsung.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 6:35 PM
> To: 16ng@ietf.org
> Subject: [16NG] Call for WG adoption: 
> draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-01
> 
> Folks, 
> 
> This is call for 16ng WG adoption on the IPv4CS deliverable: 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv
> 4-over-802-dot
> -16-ipcs-01.txt
> 
> The relevant charter item is as follows:
> 
> - Produce "IPv4 over IEEE 802.16 Networks in conjunction with IPv4 CS"
> to define IPv4 operation including the transmission of IPv4 over IEEE
> 802.16 links, ARP operation, Stateful Address Configuration 
> (DHCPv4), Broadcast, Multicast, etc [Proposed Standard RFC]
> 
> This document was presented at 16ng sessions several times 
> before WG adoption. Given the interest of 16ng WG, chairs are 
> now soliciting this adoption on the mailing list. 
> 
> Should you have any strong concern/question/feedback on this 
> document adoption at this stage, please let us know.
> 
> This call will end on 26th of May (AOE: Anytime on Earth)
> 
> -- Daniel Park & Gabriel Montenegro
>    Chairs, 16NG Working Group
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 16NG mailing list
> 16NG@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
> 

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