RE: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik,

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
>Erik Kline
>Envoyé : jeudi 22 août 2013 13:22
>À : Owen DeLong
>Cc : [e-mail]; IETF Discussion
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-
>04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile
>Devices) to Informational RFC
>
>REQ 1:
>    6434 5.9.1 is already a MUST.  This does not need to be repeated.

[Med] Because some requirements are stronger in this document than what is documented in RFC6434, we had two way to implement this in the document:
(a) Indicate RFC6434 must be supported with the exceptions in the language for some requirements listed in this document.
(b) Call out explicitly the requirements from RFC6434 that are mandatory + indicate which requirements are stronger than rfc6434.
We decided to go for (b) as it provides a comprehensive list of requirements for 3GPP mobile devices grouped in one single document. IMHO, this is just a matter of presentation. 

This rationale is explained in the introduction.


>    6434 5.8 is already a MUST.  Unless you want to make multipart
>ICMP a MUST (why?) as well, this too can be removed.
>
>REQ 6:
>    re 6434 12.2, this MUST does not appear to be stronger than 12.2's MUST
>    frankly even 5.2 reads like MUST for 3GPP, but it does SHOULD so
>this MUST appears stronger.  Bizarre, though, I never noticed that "ND
>SHOULD" before.

[Med] The language is stronger compared to the SHOULD in Section 5.2 of RFC6434.

>
>REQ 10:
>    this reads kind weird.  In REQ 9 you require 6106 support, but in
>REQ 10 you say "if 6106 is not supported."  I think you mean something
>like "if the network to which the mobile node is attaching does not
>support 6016".

[Med] Yes, agree. As mentioned in the document,

"   Some of the features listed in this profile document require to
   activate dedicated functions at the network side."

This will be fixed.