IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts
RFC 7066
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes
- 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 steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
It might help to note that EPS/EPC is the packet service for LTE.
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- 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 steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection
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 steering group member) Recuse