Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Phil Neumiller writes:
> I absolutely disagree.  IP will have to change for modern wireless devices.  Those who say
> it won't have their head in the sand.

Is it at all possible to keep this on a technical level?  As one of
these people, I don't think that the people who disagree with you can
fairly be characterized as having heads in the sand.

>  James we are not taking the PILC approach of creating
> a recommendation for L2 providers.  We are a bunch of L2 providers telling IP what it 
> needs to do!!! Absolutely has to be standards track.

Then that's clearly a problem.  I can see no IETF standards-track
material to be created here.

The good news is that, since you're L2 providers, you have a handy
place in which you can push these demands: the standards bodies that
are in control of those L2 technologies of interest.  The IETF has
control over PPP, and if any changes were needed there, that can be
done.  The IETF doesn't have control over Ethernet, 802.11, Bluetooth,
3GPP, or any of the other L2 technologies under discussion.  How can
the IETF write standards-track documents that change how those L2
technologies operate?

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking         <[email protected]>
SUN Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/