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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:10 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  [Med] It seems you skipped “systematically” in my answer ;-). So, I
> confirm “we are not recommending establishing systematically two PDP
> contexts”. The default behavior is to ask for a IPv4v6 PDP-Context, but
> (1) if the IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported, and (2) if IPv4 and IPv6
> PDP types are allowed, two PDP contexts can be requested. The network is
> free to accept those or not. As you can see there are “if”s in this
> behavior. So to be accurate, this text does not recommend requesting two
> separate PDP contexts as default behavior, but it does not forbid it
> either.
>

Ok, so you're saying that in this case, the recommendation is that the
device establishes two PDP contexts? If so, then as I said before: "Please
don't recommend this unless you have evidence that this works well in
production (not in testing)."

To make myself more clear: please either provide evidence that this works
well in production, or please remove the mention of two parallel PDP
contexts.


>               The text above focuses on the specification part which
>
>              explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP-
>
>              Context(s).  Understanding this behavior is important to
>
>              avoid having broken IPv6 implementations in cellular
>
>              devices.
>
>
>
> I find this last paragraph meaningless. What is it intended to convey?
>
>
>
> [Med] FWIW, the last paragraph was added as per a comment received from
> the mailing list:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg14716.html. The
> point is that the set of cited specifications contains more details about
> how PDP contexts are to be handled compared to what is described in here
> (that is IPv6-sepcific).
>

Let me try again. You say "The text above focuses on the specification
part". What is the "specification part"? Part of what?