Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:30 AM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jouni,
> 
> The question of overlapping is not important IMHO as the two documents are targeting distinct objectives. I thought you agreed with this point (below an excerpt from the minutes):

I agree these document have different objectives. That is clear. Still it does not make sense to repeat IPv6 related requirements in normative language that are part of the generic cellular host IPv6 requirement. Even after the change I proposed, there still are many deployment & profile issues that are not covered anywhere except in draft-binet-*.

- Jouni

> 
> "
> Lorenzo C - Doc 1 is a shopping list document 2 is a treatis on how
> you implment ipv6 on 3316. they're not covering the same domain
> 
> Jouni K - Agree with Lorenzo - different objectives so they need to be
> treated differently
> "
> 
> If now you are claiming yours is also doing what draft-binet-* does, I'm puzzled then...
> 
> Cheers,
> Med 
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : jouni korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Envoyé : dimanche 18 novembre 2012 00:14
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>> Cc : [e-mail] WG
>> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Likewise rfc3316bis assumes IPv6-only or dual-stack. Point 
>> being, rfc3316bis does not do in direction that is not 
>> necessary to run IPv6 (in a possibly multi interfaced host). 
>> IMHO the rest like NAT related recommendations, transition 
>> recommendations, WLAN specifics, tethering recommendations are 
>> then well served in draft-bonet-*.
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>> On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:17 PM, <[e-mail]> 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Re-,
>>> 
>>> draft-binet-* assumes both DS and IPv6-only deployment 
>> modes. Nothing specific there.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>>> 
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : jouni korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>>> Envoyé : vendredi 16 novembre 2012 14:09
>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>>>> Cc : [e-mail] WG
>>>> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Med,
>>>> 
>>>> I still see no reason to replicate information since what 
>>>> comes to "a pure IPv6 profile for a 3GPP link", it should be 
>>>> exactly the same in both documents. I am just trying to avoid 
>>>> misalignment now and in the future. I would also argue that 
>>>> draft-binet-* is a profile for a specific deployment(s) in 
>>>> mind, not a generic IPv6 profile for cellular. It is a way 
>>>> more (not that it would be a bad thing though..).
>>>> 
>>>> - Jouni
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 16, 2012, at 2:07 PM, <[e-mail]> 
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>>> 
>>>>> What I understood from the v6ops meeting is that wg 
>>>> participants see these two documents have distinct objectives. 
>>>> As such the question of overlapping does not apply as these 
>>>> documents serve two distinct objectives. Furthermore, because 
>>>> draft-binet-*'s objective is to define an IPv6 profile for 
>>>> cellular, we prefer the document be self-contained and use 
>>>> consistent language for all requirements.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Med 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>> De : Jouni [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 16:40
>>>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>>>>>> Cc : [e-mail]; Mikael Abrahamsson; Pete Vickers
>>>>>> Objet : Re: [v6ops] 
>> draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Med,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am slightly confused about the overlap of 
>>>>>> draft-binet-v6ops-* and draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis. My 
>>>>>> recollection was that overlaps were supposed to be removed and 
>>>>>> then concentrate on the remaining part in draft-binet-v6ops-*, 
>>>>>> no? This would concern requirements #1, #6, #7, #8, #9, #17, 
>>>>>> #22, #23, #25, #26, #27. My recommendation would be removing 
>>>>>> those and just reference to [draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis] 
>>>>>> because the base IPv6 compliancy would come from there and I 
>>>>>> see no reason to repeat those here.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Then a question about the relevance of #24. Given the current 
>>>>>> bandwidth in 3G/LTE is there really a need to compress 
>>>>>> headers? And if people really see it as a life critical 
>>>>>> feature to have, I would appreciate listing the ROHC profiles 
>>>>>> that are essential (e.g., align with IR.92 & IR.58 that will 
>>>>>> be implemented on the network side).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Jouni
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:59 PM, <[e-mail]> 
>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We submitted a new version of the draft to take into account 
>>>>>> the comments received from M. Abrahamsson and P. Vickers.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The main changes are:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Add some clarification text for REQ#3
>>>>>>> * Mention stateless dhcpv6 is useful to retrieve other 
>>>>>> information than DNS
>>>>>>> * Re-word REQ#15
>>>>>>> * Cite "Happy Eyeballs" in REQ#16
>>>>>>> * Update the text of REQ#17
>>>>>>> * Add two sub-requirements to REQ#19: IPv6-only 
>>>> connectivity + SLAAC
>>>>>>> * Precise the ordering in REQ#21
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A more detailed diff is available at:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-hos
>>>>>> t-requirements-01
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Chairs, would it be possible to issue a Call For Adoption 
>>>>>> for this document? Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Med
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>>>> De : [e-mail] 
>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de 
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 15:53
>>>>>>> À : [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Objet : I-D Action: 
>>>>>> draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01.txt
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
>>>>>> Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 	Title           : Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) 
>>>>>> Requirements for Cellular Hosts
>>>>>>> 	Author(s)       : David Binet
>>>>>>>                       Mohamed Boucadair
>>>>>>>                       Ales Vizdal
>>>>>>>                       Cameron Byrne
>>>>>>>                       Gang Chen
>>>>>>> 	Filename        : 
>>>>>> draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01.txt
>>>>>>> 	Pages           : 16
>>>>>>> 	Date            : 2012-11-15
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>> This document lists a set of IPv6-related requirements to be
>>>>>>> supported by cellular hosts.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-hos
>>>>>> t-requirements
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requ
>>>>>> irements-01
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-hos
>>>>>> t-requirements-01
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>>>>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>>>>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>