Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis WGLC

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, [e-mail] wrote:

> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis.
> Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested
> wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater
> issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional
> issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the
> list.
>
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
> comment to make.

I have re-read the document. I still find it useful. However, when reading 
it I can't help of feeling that this document isn't ready for publication 
yet. It definitely needs a do-over when it comes to language and spelling.

Also, on the technical side, I feel the document could be clearer, but I 
don't know exactly how. I know my comment here isn't really helpful, apart 
from saying that the document might need more work.

One thing that came to mind though, would be a section on how to best 
provision users in HLR. At least one vendor I know of, doesn't support 
setting "IPv4v6" on a user in their HLR. In order to support all cases of 
"IPv4", "IPv6" and "IPv4+IPv6" (dual bearer) and "IPv4v6", one needed to 
give the user two profiles, one being IPv4+ext_pdp IPv6, and also 
IPv6+ext_pdp, otherwise the user couldn't connect using IPv6 only.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]