Shepherd writeup
rfc7849-24

ISE write-up for: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-24

Abstract:
  "This document defines a profile that is a superset of that of the
    connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third
    Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document.  This
    document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators recommend
    in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or dual-stack
    wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network) with a special
    focus on IPv4 service continuity features.
 
    Both mobile hosts and mobile devices with capability to share their
    3GPP mobile connectivity are in scope."

This draft was extensively discussed in the 6man WG, version -13 was
submitted to IESG with a writeup by Fred Baker.  Fred said "Arguably,
it should be published by an association of mobile operators, but the
obvious one (3GPP) says it doesn’t write such documents."  The IESG
parked the draft, then it was submitted to the Independent Stream by
its lead author, Mohamed Boucadair; it has authors from six large
mobile providers.

This draft was reviewed for me by Mikael Abrahamson and Luis Murillo;
its authors have made many changes in response to that feedback.

This draft has no IANA Considerations.

- - - - - - -

The earlier version of this draft's writeup follows below ...


(1) This is intended to be an informational RFC. It specifies a set of requirements that might be referred to in an RFP or RFI for a specific type of service.

(2) 

Technical Summary

   This document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators
   recommend in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or
   dual-stack wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE
   802.11 network).

   This document defines a different profile than the one for general
   connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in the IPv6 for Third
   Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts document.  In
   particular, this document identifies also features to deliver IPv4
   connectivity service over an IPv6-only transport.

   Both hosts and devices with capability to share their WAN (Wide Area
   Network) connectivity are in scope.

Working Group Summary

IPv6 Operations contains a number of sub-communities, which include operators of various categories, vendors of various categories, academics, researchers, and others. This document, which is intended to describe a specific category of IPv6 service and serve in RFPs and RFIs as a set of operational requirements, was primarily of interest to the operators of 3GPP and related mobile networks. It was also reviewed by the Mobile Network vendors, including several of the authors of RFC 7066, which was developed at the same time. While there were comments and improvements made on the draft, it was not particularly controversial in the working group.

In IETF Last Call in September 2013, some comments that had been made and dropped in the working group were made with force. Several objections raised have been resolved in this version. There are three remaining objections: one person objects to the use of PCP, one person objects that the document should have come from 3GPP, and one person objects that the requirements differ a bit from those of an IPv6 node attached using a different network. In the opinion of the chairs, who are tasked with reviewing consensus, consensus is rough on those points, but none-the-less holds. With two exceptions, those who comments in the IETF LC in 2013 have signed off on the document.

Document Quality

There were a number of thorough reviews, including reviews from operators and from vendors.

Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Fred Baker. The AD is Joel Jaeggli.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 

I read it. Mobile networks are not specifically my expertise, but I solicited reviews from folks who have that expertise, and they were given.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?  

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? 

No. This is purely operational, and had operational review in the working group.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? 

The working group did not want to recommend this as a BCP. It none-the-less contains normative language. This was discussed several times in the working group, and the working group accepted it as is as they are requirements for the service in question.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. 

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? 

This represents joint concurrence of the mobile network operators and vendors in the working group.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent? 

No

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? 

no

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? 

no


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section.

It is correct
Back