(1) What type of RFC is being requested?
(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:
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.
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 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.
The document is a requirements document describing IPv6 capabilities required in mobile network devices. It is consistent with RFC 3316 an with the Node Requirements.
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.
The document shepherd read it and compared it to RFC 3316 and the Node requirements document. Mobile networks are not specifically the document shepherd's expertise, so I also sought reviews from the authors of draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile and from others in the working group. These were given and satisfactory.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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?
The document was reviewed by mobile operators for operational requirements and complexity.
(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?
(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. There are no IPR filings.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?
It represents a consensus of mobile vendors and operators.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
Yes. It obsoletes and replaces RFC 3316.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
The IANA Considerations are correct.