At 02:43 04-09-2013, mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com wrote:
[Med] The document followed the IETF procedures and was benefited
from the inputs and review of IETF participants; and as such it is
an IETF document. We included text to precise this is not a standard
but an informational document. FWIW, we formally asked for guidance
from the wg in Orlando (see
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-v6ops-9) but no
comment was made at that time.
There aren't any minutes for that WG session. Is there a formal
request for guidance from the working group and is it possible to
verify that there wasn't any comment at that time?
I took a quick look at the draft. I note that, for the telechat,
Spencer Dawkins and Pete Resnick are paid by the document. :-) It
would be interesting to have an approximate page count of the number
of pages to review.
In the Introduction Section:
"One of the major hurdles encountered by mobile operators is the
availability of non-broken IPv6 implementation in mobile devices."
I read the above sentence several times. My understanding is that
having non-broken IPv6 implementations is a hurdle. The way to fix
that would be for mobile operators to have broken IPv6 implementations. :-)
In Section 1.2:
"It uses the normative keywords only for precision."
My reading of the word "precision" is that it is the ability of a
measurement to be consistently reproduced. I don't see how special
language fits that. My guess is that the intent of that sentence got
lost in translation ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCB7cxv-Ey8 ).
In Section 2:
"REQ#3: The cellular host MUST comply with the behavior defined in
[TS.23060] [TS.23401] [TS.24008] for requesting a PDP-Context
type."
Is the above in accordance with RFC Editor guidelines?
"REQ#6: The device MUST support the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
([RFC4861] and [RFC5942])."
In which RFCs are the Neighbor Discovery Protocol defined? I am
asking this question as the above does not match the information
provided by the RFC Editor.
"REQ#12: The cellular host SHOULD support a method to locally
construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses [RFC6052]. A method to
learn PREFIX64 SHOULD be supported by the cellular host."
How would the capitalized "should" be read in the above? The
guidance in RFC 2119 does not look applicable here.
In Section 5:
"REQ#34: Applications using URIs MUST follow [RFC3986]. For example,
SIP applications MUST follow the correction defined in
[RFC5954]."
The above says that applications must follow RFC 3986 and then
provides an example with a capitalized "must" for RFC 5954.
The Security Considerations Section references
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-04. That draft contains exhaustive
security considerations. This draft doesn't say much about security
considerations.
Regards,
-sm