Subject: draft-wasserman-3gpp-advice-00.txt

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:40:26 -0500

I would like to request that the working group consider
draft-wasserman-3gpp-advice-00.txt as a working group
work item.

This draft was written by the IPv6-3GPP design team and
offers advice on the use of IPv6 within 3GPP standards.

Please let me know if there are any objections to making
this document an IPng work item.

Thanks,
Margaret

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 01:30:21 -0500 (EST)

Hi Margaret,

Had time to read this spec in more detail.  Very well written and good
integration of IP with 3GPP details for recommendations.  Design team
should be proud of this spec and it is very useful to both the IP and 3GPP
implementation communities which will overlap.

I do think this should be working group item per all the health warnings
in the spec that this is a **recommendation** but should be on BCP track
not standards track is my feeling.

Specific comments:

1.  I support ALL recommendations of feature supports for IPv6 in handsets
and UE's.  It is imperative that the principle of a cohesive code base for
IPv6 from non-3GPP implementation be useful and as bug for bug compatible
with wireline IPv6 implementations.  This will also permit 3GPP
implementations to use expediently the future IPv6 extensions as they are
developed and permit a better sharing of implementation and
interoperability between IPv6 wireline services with 3GPP services.

2.  On /64 I support this.  3GPP implementations should be able to
suppo0rt /64 and IMO /128 if necessary not doing so is short sighted for
3GPP implementations.

3.  I do not think we should spend time in the IPv6 WG discussing how,
what, or why 3GPP should support our indirect IPv6 policies (e.g. Site
Local, Privacy, Use Models) for IPv6.  This will be counter productive
for the working group and hold up forwarding a technical recommendation.
The policy used and supported by the 3GPP standards process and
implementation community is their business and not ous here in the IETF
standards process.  For individuals or social views here that have policy
input for 3GPP please go directly to 3GPP with that input is my
suggestion.  This will permit us to wrap this up quickly and not spend
years working on it in the IETF.

I think we need to do same work for 3GPP2 in addition to 3GPP.

I have no issue with the technical recommendations and they should be sent
to 3GPP as soon as possible from this community.  

Again go BCP route not standards track.

Good job and thanks

/jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:03:00 +0100

JIm,

First I agree with you technically. This is the right direction and matches
the keep-it-simple approach that is needed.

I'm not sure it should even be BCP. Effectively this is a liaison document
to another organisation - I think we would normally publish it as Informational.
Of course if 3GPP indicated that they want to cite it as a normative
reference, we might reclassify it. So it is a good idea to write it in
the style of a BCP, in any case.

   Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:26:37 -0500

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your support.

>not standards track is my feeling.

The design team has discussed this, and we think that this document
should be published as an informational RFC.  It is important that 
this be published as an RFC, so that it can live longer than six months, 
but the document itself does not contain any standards or practices --
just informational recommendations to another standards body.

>for the working group and hold up forwarding a technical recommendation.

I agree that we should not make any specific recommendations regarding
3GPP supporting these things.  However, the 3GPP standards should allow
laptops that do support these things to be attached via 3GPP handsets.  
As the 3GPP standards exist today, a laptop that uses privacy addresses 
for web connections may not be able to access the web when attached via 
a 3GPP handset.

We tried to make this distinction clear in the document, but it may
not be clear enough.

Margaret

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:21:29 -0500 (EST)

Brian,

I see.  Info or BCP all the same to me.  But thanks for the edu.

/jim

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:23:18 -0500 (EST)

Hi Margaret,

ACK on RFC.  On clarity.  Yep that would help.

thanks

/jim