Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis WGLC

wg,

The draft contains useful discussions to help shaping IPv6 profile on
mobile phone. I support WGLC. The below comments are only for
discussion/consult/clarification.

1) section 2.2 Neighbor Discovery

Once we discuss NS/NA, I'm struggling with the usage of those two
messages. The draft has very good description about notes on
point-to-point interface. The texts teach me that neighbor discovery
and NUD may be unnecessary, beacause the mobile phone doesn't rely on
NS/NA to discover neighbor and NUD is desirable to be achieved through
uppper layer guarantee. In some degree, audience may have impressions
mobile phones can eliminate NS/NA to reduce additional signalling. I'm
not sure if we could give those recommendations. Otherwise, it maybe
helpful if the draft can clarify the usages of NS/NA to a mobile
phone.

In regard to NUD using upper layer protocol, I have observed some apps
normally do keepalive/beacon message to fresh the link. Could those
messages be a tool to maintain NUD?

2) I guess both section 2.3 and 2.4 cover SLACC. Reading the contents,
I feel section 2.4 seems a sub-section of 2.3. It may be good to
assign a proper section number.

In section 2.4, there is texts "as each delegated prefix is unique".
May I suggest to reword "delegated" to
"advertised/configured/assigned" to avoid the ambiguity with DHCP-PD

3) section 2.5
It described the case of split mobile station. I guess it may help if
the draft adds a example for MT. USB dongle can be a MT.You may add
"(MT, e.g., a USB dongle)", like you did for TE. That also reminds me
"a mobile phone handset" used in the section of Abbreviations. Should
it be proper to use a USB dongle for the example. A mobile phone
handset seems like a mobile station, which is comprised of MT and TE.

4)section 2.7

If i remember coorectly, 3GPP label Privacy Extensions as the level of
"MAY". This section use "should" and "may" in the same paragraph. I
guess we may could align the statement(even that not have normative
meaning)

5)section 2.10

One typo maybe there. "me" should be corrected.

These options me be useful for cellular
                      ^^
6)section 2.11

DNS server address can also be provisioned through PCO option. Should
it be mentioned in this section?

Best Regards

Gang

2013/5/20, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com>:
> The working group last call for this draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis announced
> last week continues for another week. Please feel free to comment on it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>