Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 23/02/2015 08:59, [e-mail] a écrit :
[...]

>> C_REC#6:
>>
>> "restarts the ongoing applications". I don't like this wording,
>> "will interrupt existing network connections" or similar text
>> would be better.
>
> [Med] I made this change:
>
> OLD:
>
> Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an
> IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN restarts the ongoing
> applications.  This may be considered as a brokenness situation.
>
> NEW:
>
> Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an
> IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN will interrupt associated
> network connections.  This may be considered as a brokenness
> situation for some applications.
>
> To Alex: Can you please review this text (because you are the one
> who asked to have the OLD version)

Yes, thanks for asking.  It looks good, except it would be better to say 
"by some applications" instead of "for some applications".

And "bound" or "ongoing" or "related" would be better than "associated" 
(because this latter may make think of WiFi).

Alex

>
>>
>> C_REC#7:
>>
>> typo:
>>
>> "The purpose of the of the roaming profile is"
>
> [Med] Fixed. Thank you.
>
>>
>> C_REC#8:
>>
>> I don't understand the reference to 6052. Is this a referral to
>> networks with NAT64 and/or 464XLAT? Then I think this should be
>> clearer.
>
> [Med] This feature is for NAT64 context in general, but without
> requiring any packet translation feature.
>
> OLD: This solves the issue when applications use IPv4 referrals on
> IPv6-only access networks.
>
> NEW:
>
> In the context of NAT64, applications relying on address referrals
> will fail because an IPv6-only client won't be able to make use of
> an IPv4 address received in a referral.  This feature allows to
> solve this referral problem and, also, to distinguish between
> IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses [RFC6052] and native IPv6 addresses.
>
> Better?
>
>>
>> L_REC#4: Isn't this a duplication of one of the C_RECs?
>
> [Med] This one is for IPv4 devices connected via the cellular device
> through an IPv6-only network. The one in C_REC#8 is about local
> applications running on the cellular host.
>
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> I think this kind of document is valuable. Many operators do not
>> have staff with right skill level to put in the requirements
>> towards equipment manufacturers, and in some markets, the
>> equipment manufacturers are selling directly to consumers without
>> discussing details with operators. I also feel that the vendors of
>> mobile equipment would benefit from having a more unified set of
>> requirements from the operators.
>>
>> Either these requirements can be gathered within the IETF for IP
>> related matters, or operators can try to do it in another venue. I
>> don't see why the IETF can't be the venue for this.
>>
>> -- Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]
>>
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>>  [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>