IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-06
Yes
(Joel Jaeggli)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stewart Bryant)
Recuse
(Jari Arkko)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-09-10 for -04)
Unknown
- 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 Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -03)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-11 for -04)
Unknown
It might help to note that EPS/EPC is the packet service for LTE.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-12 for -04)
Unknown
- 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.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-09 for -04)
Unknown
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.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
(for -03)
Unknown