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

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 25 September 2012 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E60A21F8905 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.376, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQU2tkaILXP7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845B721F8934 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty12 with SMTP id y12so3305335bkt.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=FYumEyNiGC+DYSAOlg5evquRySTWq+iH6MCJQEeP+jQ=; b=QNb2RSB4WemPCpUmfQE5o1+8DMQBhqXEewx+rvyvePxwsHXq6nhiatUcRmCBCU8DKn oi/3OZp0RiG3VWc6AOwAppjeCgRMTE+ZoRqjFi2QdOmpVSsrTFm3tscETQgJuJNGC10Y FFFiUYYCkJEsj8PlyKqW3qsA43ATbE/nihqRZBjbhdYWEaowpPmjD+xf8KklCb/zPuWS pefyjHQK12lMWzfsnLPPB+CrBWR6zWwDALQXNXsLYJZcvejNwSQ4ZtATSxDBuE7Ii+/N +GxqKhMbeasUi8yIEaFYzX87mG2R72eGiww2sI/mOaTE4JCKjzvaDzNRe7/yO+wGOHbK 8NKw==
Received: by 10.204.4.129 with SMTP id 1mr5662763bkr.58.1348560246584; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:64:42:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c? ([2001:67c:64:42:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n5sm11711673bkv.14.2012.09.25.01.04.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120925133859.15A2.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:04:03 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <523CF185-5C72-4299-B4DA-3CEDBA7466D3@gmail.com>
References: <1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C3EBE458308@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5B123A8C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <20120925133859.15A2.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp>
To: MAWATARI Masataka <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:04:08 -0000

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