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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 23 February 2015 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4621A1A76 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 04:19:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rktpA2iYqeb4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 04:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2701A1A7B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 04:19:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id EF0B8C039D; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:19:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.5]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C90AD158078; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:19:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.231]) by OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:19:47 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Thread-Index: AQHQT2AHde+SG7mlHkeuZVyJyot6Y5z+JUcA
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:19:47 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004912519@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502201513320.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004912254@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <54EB15CD.4010706@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54EB15CD.4010706@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.23.112419
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/TRLJr5TC52VNrskoiqNdyeivgcs>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:19:51 -0000

Hi Alex, 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandru
> Petrescu
> Envoyé : lundi 23 février 2015 12:58
> À : v6ops@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
> 
> Le 23/02/2015 08:59, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 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).
> 

[Med] Works for me. The NEW text is now:

                Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an
                IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN will
                interrupt related network connections.  This may be
                considered as a brokenness situation by some
                applications.


> 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: swmike@swm.pp.se
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ 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
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops