Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update

Dear Masataka, Jouni,

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
>Envoyé : mardi 25 septembre 2012 10:04
>À : MAWATARI Masataka
>Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; v6ops@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
>
>
>On Sep 25, 2012, at 7:39 AM, MAWATARI Masataka wrote:
>
>> Dear authors,
>> 
>> I read throuth your draft.
>> 
>> Comment about REQ#6 and REQ#7 on -02 version regarding conveying
>> DNS server.
>> 
>> I heard that both of DHCPv6 client and RA options is not common on
>> 3GPP mobile network at least for now.
>
>Specific to 3GPP, its "NAS" layer can deliver the mobile the DNS server
>address among several other configuration things. Since NAS is 
>in 3GPP's
>hands it somehow gets preferred.. Currently as for Release-11 DHCPv6 is
>still optional and RDNS is not there at all.
>
>> This document describes that if RA options is not supported, the
>> cellular host should embed DHCPv6 client.  Will RA options have
>> more appreciated than DHCPv6 client on mobile?  However, both
>> requirements have same SHOULD.
>> 
>> Such a document should provide the clear preference and reasons
>> about that, in my opinion.
>
>The preference ordering is in the text already in a way in req#7 it
>seems but could be more clear/strict.

Med: The new text for REQ#7 is:

   REQ#7: The cellular host SHOULD embed a DHCPv6 client [RFC3736]

                 If [RFC6106] is not supported, the cellular host SHOULD
                 retrieve DNS information using stateless DHCPv6
                 [RFC3736].

                 If the cellular host receives the DNS information in
                 several channels, the following preference order MUST
                 be followed:
                 1.     PCO
                 2.     RA
                 3.     DHCPv6

>
>- Jouni
>
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> Masataka MAWATARI
>> 
>> 
>> * On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:12:56 +0200
>> * <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Re-,
>>> 
>>> We submitted a new version of the I-D integrating the 
>comments received in the list. In particular, the following 
>changes are made in -02:
>>> 
>>> * DNS64 requirement is now a SHOULD as suggested by Ted
>>> * Add a new requirement to RFC5555 as suggested by H. Soliman
>>> * Remove the requirement about ND Proxy but instead a new 
>paragraph has been added to describe the problem raised to share /64
>>> * Add a new requirement for RFC4191 as suggested by L. 
>Colliti, Behcet and Jouni
>>> * Correct a typo about DHCP client (3315).
>>> * Welcome new co-authors
>>> 
>>> A detailed diff is available at: 
>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-hos
>t-reqs-rfc3316update-02
>>> 
>>> The new version is available at: 
>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-r
>fc3316update-02.txt
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>