Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document

Hi John.

> I took this as input:

> > Furthermore, it would be very 
> > helpful and useful for our further collaboration if the IETF could 
> > inform us of their standards plan regarding IPv6. We will also inform 
> > the IETF of our ideas in the near future and then commence creating 
> > Internet drafts to define our requirements.

> What I think should be covered, to some extent, are the areas of work
> the IETF is doing and invite them to participate in the relevant working
> groups in order that their requirements are met.  At least that is how
> I read the questions wrt QoS signaling.

This makes sense to me. And FWIW, I think most of the proposed QOS
text is OK. But on the flow label,  I wonder if there is too much
text, even if it is intended to be tutorial. Can't we just cite the
relevant documents and be done with that?

> For mobility & multihoming, it would be good to point out the active
> areas in the IETF, not propose one way or another as the prefered
> mechanism, but more to list what we are doing, so that they can
> evaluate them and determine what fits there needs.

I agree. Right now, I think it would be hard to tell from the text
what those active areas are and how to position their relative
importance/applicability. We should be pointing folk to the WGs
(rather than specific documents), and let them do their own
followup. Later, once they have more specific questions, we can
elaborate. But given the vagueness of what is being asked, we need to
be just as careful to not be too specific in our response. Or we risk
not mentioning some efforts or overemphasizing another.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
ipv6-dir@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir