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

Ray,

Thanks for putting effort to read the document. Some initial comments inline.

On May 14, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:

> I have read this document. I cant say that I support it.
> 
> IMHO it's too time specific and too version specific, without proving
> added value and general guidance.

Reason being quite simple. When describing what a 3GPP UE can do, we cannot
really go beyond what has been specified so far. We can point out some
stuff that would make sense but not really anything beyond that. And we
have tried to be pedantic on that.

I somewhat disagree about the lack general guidance. Experience has shown
that it usually takes real effort explaining some of the weird details of
the 3GPP link and how corners have been cut there. Take the NDP details
as an example.

> On the one hand there are requirements to implement a kludge to cope
> with historical limitations in mobile networks and the fact the gateway
> could only handle a single prefix route (RFC6603), whereas every other
> network I know of easily handles numbering of the link "to the site"
> without this.
> 
> On the other hand there isn't a requirement for something really basic
> in the IPv6 vision, like BCP 157, so that a device can always be
> provided with enough addresses/prefixes to properly number all of its
> interfaces using SLAAC without resorting to workarounds like
> draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-04.

Something we have to live with at the moment. RFC3314 tried to recommend
otherwise but what was recommend did not materialize. Even if I really
wanted to recommend support for multiple prefixes on a 3GPP link, this
document is not a recommendation document but what has to be there for
an IPv6 enabled UE.

> I therefore question what this document adds above and beyond reading
> the detailed 3gpp version releases/ specs, and why the IETF should
> publish this document at all.

The original RFC3316 still gets referenced and that somewhat needed a
facelift. Mostly because when RFC3316 came out we did not even have
the node requirements document, and a lot of stuff that really belongs
to the node requirements document is duplicated (and now outdated) in
RFC3316.

- Jouni

> 
> regards,
> RayH
> 
> Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list.
>> 
>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make
>> 
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis idnits
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops