IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-06

[Ballot comment]

- 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
fixed.

[Ballot comment]
- 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?

[Ballot comment]
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.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03, which is currently
in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA
Actions that need completion.  IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 for 3GPP Cellular Hosts) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 for 3GPP Cellular Hosts'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-09-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  As the deployment of third and fourth generation cellular networks
  progresses, a large number of cellular hosts are being connected to
  the Internet.  Standardization organizations have made Internet
  Protocol version 6 (IPv6) mandatory in their specifications.
  However, the concept of IPv6 covers many aspects and numerous
  specifications.  In addition, the characteristics of cellular links
  in terms of bandwidth, cost and delay put special requirements on how
  IPv6 is used.  This document considers IPv6 for cellular hosts that
  attach to the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Universal Mobile
  Telecommunications System (UMTS), or Evolved Packet System (EPS)
  networks (Hereafter collectively referred to as 3GPP networks).  This
  document also lists out specific IPv6 functionalities that need to be
  implemented in addition what is already prescribed in the IPv6 Node
  Requirements document.  It also discusses some issues related to the
  use of these components when operating in these networks.  This
  document obsoletes RFC 3316.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

1. Summary

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

Technical Summary:

As the deployment of third and fourth generation cellular networks
progresses, a large number of cellular hosts are being connected to
the Internet. Standardization organizations have made Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6) mandatory in their specifications.
However, the concept of IPv6 covers many aspects and numerous
specifications. In addition, the characteristics of cellular links
in terms of bandwidth, cost and delay put special requirements on how
IPv6 is used. This document considers IPv6 for cellular hosts that
attach to the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS), or Evolved Packet System (EPS)
networks (Hereafter collectively referred to as 3GPP networks). This
document also lists out specific IPv6 functionalities that need to be
implemented in addition what is already prescribed in the IPv6 Node
Requirements document. It also discusses some issues related to the
use of these components when operating in these networks. This
document obsoletes RFC 3316.

2. Review and Consensus

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 replace RFC 3316, was primarily of interest to the vendors of mobile networking equipment, including handsets, cell equipment, and network back ends. It was also reviewed by the Mobile Network operators, including several of the authors of draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile, which was developed at the same time. While there were comments and improvements made on the draft, it was not particularly controversial.

3. Intellectual Property

Each author has stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed. Per the data tracker, there is no filed IPR statement.