Re: [v6ops] Call for Adoption: draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

It sounded to me like Lorenzo was looking for the actual 3GPP specifications. However, that's really a question for him, not me.

draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-06.xml, which became RFC 7066, contains:

  <reference anchor='TS.23060'>
   <front>
    <title>General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service description; Stage 2
    </title>
    <author><organization>3GPP</organization></author>
    <date day='7' month='March' year='2013' />
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='3GPP TS' value='23.060 11.5.0' />
   <format type='HTML' target='http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23060.htm' />
  </reference>

  <reference anchor='TS.29061'>
   <front>
    <title>Interworking between the Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) supporting
           packet based services and Packet Data Networks (PDN)
    </title>
    <author><organization>3GPP</organization></author>
    <date day='15' month='March' year='2013' />
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='3GPP TS' value='29.061 11.4.0' />
   <format type='HTML' target='http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29061.htm' />
  </reference>

  <reference anchor='TS.23401'>
   <front>
    <title>General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for Evolved
           Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) access
    </title>
    <author><organization>3GPP</organization></author>
    <date day='7' month='March' year='2013' />
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='3GPP TS' value='23.401 11.5.0' />
   <format type='HTML' target='http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23401.htm' />
  </reference>

  <reference anchor='TS.23402'>
   <front>
    <title>Architectural enhancements for non-3GPP accesses
    </title>
    <author><organization>3GPP</organization></author>
    <date day='8' month='March' year='2013' />
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name='3GPP TS' value='23.402 11.6.0' />
   <format type='HTML' target='http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23402.htm' />
  </reference>


> On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
> RFC7066 and RFC7278 have 3GPP spec citations, but I am not sure which one
> or ones would be the right ones. Can we inherit the 3GPP specs by citing the
> RFCs, or do we need to go in and dig them out for inclusion in this document?
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 8:35 AM
>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]>; [e-mail] WG <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call for Adoption: draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 30, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Fred,
>>> 
>>> I think the references for Lorenzo's comment would be RFC7066 and/or RFC7278.
>>> Lorenzo - do I have that right?
>> 
>> He was mentioning 3GPP specifications, if I understood him correctly.
>> 
>>> Thanks - Fred
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 12:47 PM
>>>> To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail] WG <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call for Adoption: draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 27, 2018, at 1:46 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have read the draft and support adoption. The document is a general discussion of how hosts can benefit from multiple
>> addresses
>>>> that is agnostic to the way the prefix is delivered, and it fits well with the spirit of RFC 7934.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I note that Section 8 seems to specify host behaviour, which is typically not in scope for v6ops. To my mind that doesn't preclude
>>>> adoption since it can be reworded in a way that doesn't specify host behaviour but only specifies the consequences of potential
>>>> changes to host behaviour that specified by other working groups such as 6man.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 10 should mention the de-facto prefix delegation mechanism used by all 3GPP networks, in which the fact that the prefix
>> is
>>>> delegated to the host is not explicit in the protocol signalling but unambiguously defined by link-specific standards (i.e., 3GPP
>>>> standards), which guarantees that the prefix uniquely belongs to the host. I think there would be a benefit if host behaviour could
>>>> change based on such knowledge of the link characteristics, and this document would be a good place to say so. RFC 7278 is an
>> implicit
>>>> case in which we are already taking advantage of those characteristics.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be good to have a reference, for the bibliography. What is the reference identifier etc?
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:25 AM Ron Bonica <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This draft initiates a two week call for adoption on draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost. Please respond by August 9, 2018.
>>>>> 
>>>>>                                                                    Ron
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> 
>