ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

2013-08-22 10:17:01
Hi Erik,

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : v6ops-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:v6ops-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] De la part de
Erik Kline
Envoyé : jeudi 22 août 2013 13:22
À : Owen DeLong
Cc : v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF Discussion
Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-
04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile
Devices) to Informational RFC

REQ 1:
   6434 5.9.1 is already a MUST.  This does not need to be repeated.

[Med] Because some requirements are stronger in this document than what is 
documented in RFC6434, we had two way to implement this in the document:
(a) Indicate RFC6434 must be supported with the exceptions in the language for 
some requirements listed in this document.
(b) Call out explicitly the requirements from RFC6434 that are mandatory + 
indicate which requirements are stronger than rfc6434.
We decided to go for (b) as it provides a comprehensive list of requirements 
for 3GPP mobile devices grouped in one single document. IMHO, this is just a 
matter of presentation. 

This rationale is explained in the introduction.


   6434 5.8 is already a MUST.  Unless you want to make multipart
ICMP a MUST (why?) as well, this too can be removed.

REQ 6:
   re 6434 12.2, this MUST does not appear to be stronger than 12.2's MUST
   frankly even 5.2 reads like MUST for 3GPP, but it does SHOULD so
this MUST appears stronger.  Bizarre, though, I never noticed that "ND
SHOULD" before.

[Med] The language is stronger compared to the SHOULD in Section 5.2 of RFC6434.


REQ 10:
   this reads kind weird.  In REQ 9 you require 6106 support, but in
REQ 10 you say "if 6106 is not supported."  I think you mean something
like "if the network to which the mobile node is attaching does not
support 6016".

[Med] Yes, agree. As mentioned in the document,

"   Some of the features listed in this profile document require to
   activate dedicated functions at the network side."

This will be fixed.