Skip to main content

IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Cellular Hosts
RFC 7066

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 steering group member) Yes

Yes (2013-09-10 for -04)
- 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

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

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

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-12 for -04)
- 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

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-09 for -04)
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

Recuse (for -03)