Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Dear Pete,

Thank you for your comment.

I updated REQ#21 to add a preference order for DNS information: (1) RA, (2) DHCPv6.

As for REQ#19, I updated it as follows:
* Add a reference to SLAAC
* Focus on the support of IPv6-only connectivity mode (as this is not well supported by some handsets).

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De 
>la part de Pete Vickers
>Envoyé : mercredi 14 novembre 2012 22:58
>À : [e-mail]
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
>
>Hi,
>
><lurk mode off>
>
>I'm very please with the way this draft is starting to look, 
>just a follow up on Victor's note though: Given that the 'DNS 
>info' preference order is set for multiple values received 
>over cellular interface, I believe that in the interests of 
>consistent behaviour the same preference order should also be 
>mandated for wifi interface acquired values. I think this 
>effectively adds REQ 19.5 as SLACC, which is also fine by me. 
>
>
>regards,
>
>Pete Vickers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 14. nov. 2012, at 21.00, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 22:12:22 -0500
>> From: Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>
>> To: <[e-mail]>,	<[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft:
>> 	draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements
>> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>