Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Likewise rfc3316bis assumes IPv6-only or dual-stack. Point being, rfc3316bis does not do in direction that is not necessary to run IPv6 (in a possibly multi interfaced host). IMHO the rest like NAT related recommendations, transition recommendations, WLAN specifics, tethering recommendations are then well served in draft-bonet-*.

- Jouni

On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:17 PM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Re-,
> 
> draft-binet-* assumes both DS and IPv6-only deployment modes. Nothing specific there.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : jouni korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Envoyé : vendredi 16 novembre 2012 14:09
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>> Cc : [e-mail] WG
>> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01
>> 
>> 
>> Med,
>> 
>> I still see no reason to replicate information since what 
>> comes to "a pure IPv6 profile for a 3GPP link", it should be 
>> exactly the same in both documents. I am just trying to avoid 
>> misalignment now and in the future. I would also argue that 
>> draft-binet-* is a profile for a specific deployment(s) in 
>> mind, not a generic IPv6 profile for cellular. It is a way 
>> more (not that it would be a bad thing though..).
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 16, 2012, at 2:07 PM, <[e-mail]> 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jouni,
>>> 
>>> What I understood from the v6ops meeting is that wg 
>> participants see these two documents have distinct objectives. 
>> As such the question of overlapping does not apply as these 
>> documents serve two distinct objectives. Furthermore, because 
>> draft-binet-*'s objective is to define an IPv6 profile for 
>> cellular, we prefer the document be self-contained and use 
>> consistent language for all requirements.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Med 
>>> 
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : Jouni [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 16:40
>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>>>> Cc : [e-mail]; Mikael Abrahamsson; Pete Vickers
>>>> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Med,
>>>> 
>>>> I am slightly confused about the overlap of 
>>>> draft-binet-v6ops-* and draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis. My 
>>>> recollection was that overlaps were supposed to be removed and 
>>>> then concentrate on the remaining part in draft-binet-v6ops-*, 
>>>> no? This would concern requirements #1, #6, #7, #8, #9, #17, 
>>>> #22, #23, #25, #26, #27. My recommendation would be removing 
>>>> those and just reference to [draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis] 
>>>> because the base IPv6 compliancy would come from there and I 
>>>> see no reason to repeat those here.
>>>> 
>>>> Then a question about the relevance of #24. Given the current 
>>>> bandwidth in 3G/LTE is there really a need to compress 
>>>> headers? And if people really see it as a life critical 
>>>> feature to have, I would appreciate listing the ROHC profiles 
>>>> that are essential (e.g., align with IR.92 & IR.58 that will 
>>>> be implemented on the network side).
>>>> 
>>>> - Jouni
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:59 PM, <[e-mail]> 
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We submitted a new version of the draft to take into account 
>>>> the comments received from M. Abrahamsson and P. Vickers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The main changes are:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * Add some clarification text for REQ#3
>>>>> * Mention stateless dhcpv6 is useful to retrieve other 
>>>> information than DNS
>>>>> * Re-word REQ#15
>>>>> * Cite "Happy Eyeballs" in REQ#16
>>>>> * Update the text of REQ#17
>>>>> * Add two sub-requirements to REQ#19: IPv6-only 
>> connectivity + SLAAC
>>>>> * Precise the ordering in REQ#21
>>>>> 
>>>>> A more detailed diff is available at:
>>>>> 
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-hos
>>>> t-requirements-01
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chairs, would it be possible to issue a Call For Adoption 
>>>> for this document? Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Med
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>> De : [e-mail] 
>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de 
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 15:53
>>>>> À : [e-mail]
>>>>> Objet : I-D Action: 
>>>> draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
>>>> Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	Title           : Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) 
>>>> Requirements for Cellular Hosts
>>>>> 	Author(s)       : David Binet
>>>>>                        Mohamed Boucadair
>>>>>                        Ales Vizdal
>>>>>                        Cameron Byrne
>>>>>                        Gang Chen
>>>>> 	Filename        : 
>>>> draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-01.txt
>>>>> 	Pages           : 16
>>>>> 	Date            : 2012-11-15
>>>>> 
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>> This document lists a set of IPv6-related requirements to be
>>>>> supported by cellular hosts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>> 
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-hos
>>>> t-requirements
>>>>> 
>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>> 
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requ
>>>> irements-01
>>>>> 
>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>> 
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-hos
>>>> t-requirements-01
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>> 
>>