IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

Comment (2013-09-10 for -04)
No email
send info
- Section 2.5 says "MLD is needed for multicast group knowledge that is not link-local."  It would be clearer to re-state (or reference) section 5.10 in RFC 6434.  The level of MLD support is dependent upon the types of multicast applications supported on the cellular device.

- Is there any need for time synchronization on cellular devices?

(Joel Jaeggli) Yes

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-11 for -04)
No email
send info
It might help to note that EPS/EPC is the packet service for LTE.

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-12 for -04)
No email
send info
- Section 3 no longer really discusses IPsec since that's
now in 6434, and doesn't mention TLS at all (nor does 6434
really) so that bullet in section 7 should probably be

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-09 for -04)
No email
send info
In section 2.9, is there any appropriate way to give more guidance about the implementation of the default router preferences?   My naive intuition would be that the host should generally prefer to use a Wifi default route over a 3gpp default route, and indeed I think most phones do this, but that's not what this section says to do.   By implementing a top-level preference for one interface over another, aren't handsets violating this recommendation?

In section 7:
      However, it should be noted that in the
      3GPP model, the network would assign a new prefix, in most cases,
      to hosts in roaming situations and typically, also when the
      cellular hosts activate a PDP Context or a PDN Connection.  This
      means that 3GPP networks will already provide a limited form of
      addressing privacy, and no global tracking of a single host is
      possible through its address.

Changing prefixes doesn't address the privacy issue that temporary addresses address.   Do the host bits change in this situation, or just the prefix bits?   If the former, it would be worth saying so to avoid conclusion; if the latter, then the statement is simply wrong.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

(Jari Arkko) Recuse