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

Rajiv,

On Sep 25, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:

> Jouni,
> 
> Trying to make sense of 3GPP's thought process here -  

Is there any sense in it? 

> * rel 10 includes DHCPv6 for PD, rel 11 keeps DHCPv6 (for NA!) optional.
> 
> * SLAAC is included (rel 8 onwards!), but complimentary RDNS stays excluded.

SLAAC has been there since like rel-99.

> I guess 'simplification' is very subjective. ;-)

;)

- Jouni

> 
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
> 
> Sent from my Phone
> 
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:04 AM, "jouni korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> - 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-host-reqs-rfc3316update-02
>>>> 
>>>> The new version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update-02.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Med
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops