IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements

Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com> Wed, 14 November 2012 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DED21F860D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:12:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6yyg832JptSO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3FC21F85FF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 9so13073043iec.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:12:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qzqNHH0AzHwTkduGD16P3kU+QgsAbLsOyyF7/FB6MHU=; b=pP05LweI1Uq6I8PTmjRPu1b03aouFjaXYASFImq7A8yIB/Uf48Yz/gn5FHVx9co4Jx KuBPsqbrP0fMGWTifMy+/gnG73Wm0SKTMIL+y9/6XJ/UDqgE8g+TP/rPuCpbnWEiu2JH KaaWJbtwjtW+4I8iX/CNyRW4msL4Wix9yEGrmo62hNr/OZqlmJ7sCs569pR1+1n5enbe r6cpjPG4IRZjXuCGzaWyBQkY3OC1xfKnflgeImTMjHzePU9R2bSIDBI7lSpPG7XYO8Hh x+wr9gxUQ5r496fDnzPMHTTfEVShONRz6dG/wnCUKw+lwhgSvZN+t1XjqXL2AaAsXSZj EVeQ==
Received: by 10.50.160.166 with SMTP id xl6mr577814igb.74.1352862751125; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.100.204] ([67.224.83.162]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wh5sm272353igb.17.2012.11.13.19.12.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:12:29 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:12:22 -0500
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
To: fred@cisco.com, v6ops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CCC873A7.3A4D3%victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements
In-Reply-To: <201211121345.qACDj1t14317@ftpeng-update.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:12:32 -0000

V6ops/Draft Authors,

Here are some comments on the updated draft (and it's relation to
draft-korhonen-v6ops-rfc3316bis-00).  I hope there is not too much overlap
with other comments, I have not had time to review those as of yet.

I would agree with the WG discussion that this draft
(v6ops-cellular-host-requirements) is quite different then
draft-korhonen-v6ops-rfc3316bis-00 but there is some overlap (does not
bother me as long as they are consistent where they overlap or it
references the 3316bis document and removes the local document text)

ON this draft:


SECTION 2.1 - Wi-Fi
IN section 2.1 (Wi-Fi) there is a very short set of requirements stated
for the Wi-Fi interface.  Given that this document is focused on the 3GPP
interface and operation, perhaps you can just point to RFC 6434 (IPv6 Node
Requirements).  

I note that since you don't mention SLACC in section 2.1, but do mention
DHCPv6 (I would think that SLACC is likely a good idea to specify)

Perhaps to make it easy, put RFC 6434 in REQ#19?


OVERALL

The draft seems to have a definite parallel target for 464XLAT operation.
But most of the those requirements are SHOULDs in this document.

I would think that some operators and handsets will want 464XLAT and some
may not care (I am of the former myself - I want 464XLAT).

That said, if a cell host needs to operate on a 464XLAT network, perhaps
we need MUSTs in there?

Would it make sense to spit off the requirements for 464XLAT and make them
MUSTs within that section?  Since they would be in different section, we
can say "If the cellular host is intended to support 464XLAT operation,
then the following section applies". (or something to that effect).

Regards,

Victor Kuarsingh







On 2012-11-12 8:45 AM, "fred@cisco.com" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>A new draft has been posted, at
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements.
>Please take a look at it and comment.
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>v6ops@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email