Shepherd writeup

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is
this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This document requests Informational status. It is a report, in large
part, on the experience of deploying IPv6-only services in a 3GPP
mobile network using NAT64 for access to IPv4 services.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

   This document identifies a set of failure cases that may be
   encountered by IPv6-enabled mobile customers in roaming scenarios.
   The analysis reveals that the failure causes include improper
   configurations, incomplete functionality support in equipment, and
   inconsistent IPv6 deployment strategies between the home and the
   visited networks.

Working Group Summary

China Mobile has been pretty openly discussing what they call "IPv6
Bearer Network Trials" starting at IETF 81. As one might imagine, they
had various problems with routing (OSPF issues due to variable MTU,
for example) and other operational aspects. They started discussing
their issues in roaming at IETF 87, and other operators experimenting
with the technology chimed in. This was accepted as a working group
draft and discussed at IETF 89, and is now being filed. There has been
active discussion on technical points, but little real dispute.

Document Quality

This is operational experience, and the author list reflects the set
of companies reporting experience with it - Deutsche Telekom AG,
Rogers, China Mobile, and Orange. Given the range of comments made,
the document appears to cover the bases.

Note that while the document specifically addresses 3GPP networks, it
also comments on 2G and 4G, and by extension LTE.


Document Shepherd: Fred Baker Area Director: Joel Jaeggli

Document Shepherd Review: I have read the document several times, one
looking for possible ESL issues and at least one on technical
issues. I have of course also run it through online tools including
idnits, and the Microsoft Word Grammar Checker, looking for "unusual"
phraseology. I am not personally an expert on 3GPP technology, but
have followed working group commentary from those who are.

I do not have concerns on the reviews that have been done. If the Ops
Directorate wants to chime in, that might be welcome.

Matters of broader perspective, in this case, largely extend to 3GPP
itself. The authors include 3GPP experts, and many on the list have
that expertise.

I am comfortable recommending the document.

There are no IPR filings against this document or its predecessor, and
the authors know of no IPR issues.

I would describe the consensus behind this document as pretty
strong. Besides the authors, the folks in the working group that work
in this area have also been supportive. That does not reflect the
entire working group; many who do not operate 3GPP Mobile Networks
have no commented. That is to be expected.

There has been no appeal threatened.

The references are divided among "informative", which are pointers for
further reading, and "normative", which are essential to understanding
the document. The references, normative and informative, are all
finished documents.

This document changes the status of no RFCs.

The IANA section correctly asserts that the document makes no requests
of IANA.