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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 21 September 2012 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 A470721F8717 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 mtmXYMy41Scc for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA3621F845C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5C45D3B442C; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:47:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3A76423807F; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:47:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:47:58 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:47:56 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
Thread-Index: Ac2X/cjHKhpc8MX3R3q5KqWn6frexAAACRJQ
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5B12365F@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5B123633@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CC82A92E.29153%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC82A92E.29153%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.9.21.114516
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <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: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:47:59 -0000

Re-,

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Hesham Soliman [mailto:hesham@elevatemobile.com] 
>Envoyé : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 15:34
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : IPv6 Ops WG
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A few quick comments on the drat having gone through it quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Requirements 1 and 2 are sort of redundant in an IETF
>>>document. The
>>>>>purpose od RFC 3316 was t specify IETF protocols that should
>>>>>be supported
>>>>>by the cellular host. PDP context has nothing to do with
>>>IETF protocols
>>>>>and functionally speaking it's outside of the IP stack.
>>>>>Therefore, I see
>>>>>no reason for specifying this in an RFC. It's not harmful, but
>>>>>since it's
>>>>>specified elsewhere, having such redundancy can lead to
>>>>>confusion if 3GPP
>>>>>specs change for example. So it's best to remove them.
>>>>
>>>>Med: I see the point but we consider it from another perspective: We
>>>>tried to answer to the question "What a device should support
>>>in order to
>>>>be IPv6-compliant + be able to be connected to a3GPP network".
>>>
>>>=> So why don't you talk about the radio interface? :)
>>
>>Med: is this related to IPv6? ;-)
>>
>> It's 
>>>out of scope.
>>>The PDP context is the same. It's out of scope for IETF.
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is no single document defining an IPv6 profile for cellular
>>>>hosts/devices. We wanted a single document listed both IETF and 3GPP
>>>>specification.
>>>
>>>=> There is, RFC 3316, which you're trying to update and it
>>>doesn't talk
>>>about link layers.
>>
>>Med: This is not a reason to not include it in the update.
>
>
>=> But you're not responding to the reasons I stated above. It's out of
>scope because it's not defined in IETF.

Med: Should we care about frontiers between SDOs when the goal is to ensure interoperability? IMHO, we should not. What we want to achieve with this document is to list a basic set of IPv6 requirements for cellular hosts no matter if the requirement is defined in IETF or 3GPP. 
My current take is: it is useful to have in one common place both IETF and non-IETF REQs. I see you don't agree with this position. 
This is still an individual submission. If the WG adopts this work, then we will record whatever the WG wants us to do: If the consensus is to drop those 3GPP-related requirements, then we will do it.