Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 21 September 2012 12:15 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 F2ED021F8797 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 l7Gj3e2axgnb for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1938621F8790 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4DD543B4151; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:15:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.34]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3298427C046; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:15:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.34]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:15:04 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:15:03 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
Thread-Index: Ac2X3UZnWODRlUSuSDSbZJZ87uGevgAFIlrg
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5B1235AB@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <CC8252D3.290D7%hesham@elevatemobile.com> <CC82733B.29126%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC82733B.29126%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: 2012.6.19.115414
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 12:15:06 -0000
Re-, I'm neutral on the support of this one. I added this new REQ to Section 3 to record it in the I-D: "REQ#28: The cellular host MAY support [RFC5555]." Thanks. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Hesham Soliman [mailto:hesham@elevatemobile.com] >Envoyé : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 11:41 >À : Hesham Soliman; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >Cc : IPv6 Ops WG >Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update > >one more comment, I believe RFC 5555 is mentioned in LTE >specs. It should >be listed as a MAY IMO. > >Hesham > >-----Original Message----- >From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> >Date: Friday, 21 September 2012 5:38 PM >To: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> >Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org> >Subject: 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. >> >>2. Same goes for the PCO. out of scope. It's no different than the IP >>stack "finding" these parameters in a file that come from "somewhere". >> >>3. Req 5, I suggest a MAY instead of a SHOULD. >> >>4. for req 6 and 7. Are we sure this is a SHOULD? Are we effectively >>requiring these functions for all deployments? It seems like a big >>mandate, who's pushing for this? Just need to see that we >have consensus >>on this. I think Req 8 has the right keyword "MAY" and the same should >>apply to 6 and 7 IMO. >> >>5. REQ 9 and 10 are also too strong. This is a MAY by the >definition of >>keywords. It's an optimisation. >> >>6. REQ 18 repeats 3316, although the reference has changed, so it's >>redundant. >> >>7. REQ 19 conflicts with REQ 5, MAY Vs SHOULD. If they're >both MAY I'm ok >>with that. >> >>8. REQ 21 is completely redundant because this behaviour is >mentioned in >>RFC 3314, 3316 and 3GPP specs. >> >>9. REQ 27: For 3GPP specs there are defined standards for discovering >>their servers. Why would you list another mechanism not >related to 3GPP? >>The purpose of the draft is to address a specific deployment. >General IETF >>specs are available to all implementers and they can decide >for themselves >>what they want to implement on top of the base. >> >>10. I disagree with REQ 28. This is an experimental RFC. If >someone does >>it that's fine, but no need to mandate it here. >> >>11. REQ#29: "The cellular device MUST support Prefix Delegation >> capabilities [RFC3633 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3633>]. >>Particularly, it MUST behave as a >> Requesting Router." >> >>=> Why? Where did this come from? I disagree with this >requirement. It's >>up to each implementation to decide that. At best, you could >have a MAY >>but it's completely redundant. And as a consequence, so is REQ 30. >> >> >>12. REQ#31: The cellular device SHOULD support Customer Side >Translator >> (CLAT) [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat >><http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-re >qs-rfc3316up >>d >>ate-00#ref-I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat>]. >> >>=> Why? Why SHOULD? Again, at best a MAY. >> >>Thanks, >>Hesham >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>v6ops mailing list >>v6ops@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > >
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… david.binet
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… david.binet
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… MAWATARI Masataka
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… Anupam Kapoor
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… david.binet
- Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-… mohamed.boucadair