Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:43:18 +0200

Hi, Margaret!

Informational RFC is fine for us (this was discussed in SLC meeting).

We are happy that our document can be used as an input for a "general IPv6 node requirements" document that will be written in the (near) future.

Cheers,
	-Juha W.-

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 28 February, 2002 16:53

What type of last call are you proposing?  Do you think that this 
document should become an informational RFC?  Or do you think it
should be on the standards track?

It was my impression that we (the WG) were hoping to move 
towards a more general "node requirements" document, using this
document as (one of) the input(s).  

Margaret

At 07:28 AM 2/28/02 , [email-masked] wrote:

>  Hi!
>
>We "cellular host IPv6" draft authors believe that our draft
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt
>
>would be ready for wg last call.
>
>Bob and Steve, if there are no objections from the WG,
>could you please consider announcing last call for this draft?
>
>Thank You.
>
>On behalf of all the authors,
>                                  Juha Wiljakka
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>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]
>-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:15:46 +0200

Hi Margaret,

> We are happy that our document can be used as an input for a 
> "general IPv6 node requirements" document that will be 
> written in the (near) future.

I think we discussed that possibility with the WG chairs, and that
seemed to be an acceptable way forward.  I think that most of
the authors (I for one) would be happy to contribute to the
general node requirements.

John

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:16:09 +0100

Margaret, 

I don't know if someone already answered this, 
but I believe the agreement in SLC was to progress
the cellular host draft independantly, mainly because 
of the very close 3GPP deadline. 

Cheers,
Hesham

  > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
  > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:53 PM
  > To: [email-masked]
  > Cc: [email-masked]
  > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Hi Juha,
  >

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 11:10:41 -0500

I do think that this document includes interesting and useful 
information about the perspective of cellular handset vendors,
and the technical requirements and issues for cellular handsets.
Within the IETF, therefore, it might be useful to publish this
document as an Informational RFC.

However, I am concerned about how outside groups (specifically 
the 3GPP) will interpret publishing this document, even as an 
Informational RFC.

Hesham's comment illustrates my concern...

>of the very close 3GPP deadline. 

How are we expecting the 3GPP to use this document?  Why is
it needed for a 3GPP deadline?

Will outside groups believe that this document represents a 
consensus of the IPv6 WG regarding what the minimal requirements 
actually are for an IPv6 cellular host?  If so, I don't think that 
we should publish this document without a more significant discussion 
within the WG. 

It is not my impression that the WG has reached consensus on some
of the issues raised in this document, specifically:

         - Forbidding the use of DAD on some links
         - Situation where IP Security should be optional/disabled
                 (and the who distinction between "Core IP" and
                 "IP Security")
         - Making ND optional on point-to-point links
         - Making IPv6 autoconfiguration optional on hosts (rather
                 than mandatory on hosts and turned on/off for the
                 link in router advertisements)

Also, some of the comments in this document might best be handled
as "applicability" portions of other documents (i.e. use of 6to4
over a cellular link), rather than as specific requirements for
a class of hosts.

I do think that the WG will need to do some work on defining the
official contents of IPv6, including the minimal requirements for
IPv6 nodes (or hosts and routers), but this will probably require
a considerable effort, and a good deal of negotiation within the
WG and with the IESG.

I am concerned that we may bypass this effort, to our later detriment,
by publishing a document now that is mistakenly interpretted as a 
standards-track host requirements document by outside groups.

Does anyone else share this concern?  What are our options to
ensure that this doesn't happen?

Margaret

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 04:57:02 +0100

Hi Margaret, 

Thanks for the comments, I've been a bit concerned 
about the lack of interest/comments so far. 
I didn't think that we did a perfect job :)
My comments below. BTW, these are comments/questions
for all, hopefully we can get more feedback.

  > document as an Informational RFC.

=> OK.

  > it needed for a 3GPP deadline?

=> Because they would use it as a reference for 
UMTS handsets implementors.

  > actually are for an IPv6 cellular host?  

=> Yes.

If so, I don't think that 
  > we should publish this document without a more significant 

=> Then let's begin the discussions. The only reason
for standardising the draft in the IPv6 WG was to make
sure that we're doing the right thing. Otherwise an 
informational RFC wouldn't have to go through the
IPv6 WG or could have been replaced by a 3GPP spec.
But since the competence is here, it is crucial
that we get feedback.

  >          - Forbidding the use of DAD on some links

=> DAD is not needed if address duplication is not
possible. Since each terminal gets a unique
/64 (as per the advice draft), and since all terminals
are on p2p links, DAD would be a waste of BW.
But please have a closer look and let us know 
if something was missed. 

  >                  (and the who distinction between "Core IP" and

=> The distinction between IP security and core IP
is merely an editorial distinciton. For example
you can see that in 'core IP' we list all the 
IPv6 WG RFCs. 
As to whether IP security (I assume you mean IPsec)
should be mandated or not, we can discuss that.
But some questions that we would need to answer:

- By 'mandated' do we mean implementation or use?
- What should be mandated? 
- Why should it be mandated?

  >          - Making ND optional on point-to-point links

=> RFC 2461 MUST be implemented, the exceptions are
things like the Link layer suboption which is not
relevant for these links. Did we miss something else?

  >                  link in router advertisements)

=> You mean 2462 shoud be a SHOULD/MUST? 
That's possible for the generic cellular case, but for 3GPP, 
since there is a separate 'autoconfig' mechanism, 
this RFC is not needed. Would a SHOULD/MUST for the 
general case, and a 'not needed' for 3GPP 
be staisfactory?

  > ensure that this doesn't happen?

=> I think you're making valid points and, as I said,
our intention (since the London meeting) was to try 
to get as much feedback as possible. Very few comments
were made, I assumed due to lack of interest/time. 
But, since the draft has been out for a long time
now, it would be good to get these comments ASAP. 
Rushing the draft to become RFC is not good, but 
delaying it for too long can be just as detrimental
to deployment. I hope more WG members would comment
on this. 

Cheers,
Hesham

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:08:55 +0200

Hi Margaret,

> document as an Informational RFC.

Agreed.

> the 3GPP) will interpret publishing this document, even as an 

I think that we can discuss if we need to add any clarifying text
here.  It could be as simple as this document is informational
and should not override any standards documents.  Please note
that many of the authors of the document are also involved in
the 3GPP standardization process.  

> it needed for a 3GPP deadline?

Release 5, as you know, is using IPv6 for the IMN subsystem.
The Mobile Node, therefore, needs to have IPv6 in order
to access content from IMN.  3GPP specifications have a March
deadline.  Our document is meant to enable interoperability
between networks and cellular hosts.
 
> we should publish this document without a more significant discussion 

Discussion is always welcome.  We have been asking for comment from
the working group since London - and we have gotten some.  In order
to progress the work, the authors felt that the document is ready for
last call.

> over a cellular link), rather than as specific requirements for

Put that way, I can see that the document does a bit more than
just give requirements - it also discusses the applicability of
some features of IPv6, that is true. 

> a considerable effort, and a good deal of negotiation within the

Agreed, we've been talking about this since London, and all of the 
authors have volunteered to help on this effort.  I think a IPv6
Host Requirement document would be a very good thing.

> standards-track host requirements document by outside groups.

I don't share your doubts.  I believe that we need this kind of 
document, as there will be IPv6 enabled phones being produced,
probably this year.  The networks are already being deployed. 
Should we not, then try to specify & give guidence on IPv6 - or
should we do nothing?  One of the prime goals of the document
is to ensure that IPv6 works in these cellular networks & that
the cellular hosts are good citizens on the net.  I do agree
that an IPv6 Host Requirements document is needed, and was
probably needed last year.  However, that should not prevent
us from continuing work on this document.
 
In summary, we welcome technical comments & discussion on the
draft - we hoped that asking for a WG last call would stir
up some comments.  Additionally, we believe that a IPv6 Host
Requirements document is needed & we are interested in participating.
Finally, if some text is needed, in order to clarify that this
document should not be taken as a basis for a general IPv6
host requirements document, we'd be happy to consider such
a statement.

best regards,
John

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 02:33:34 -0500

Hi John,

>the 3GPP standardization process.  

It is possible that some sort of clarifying text could alleviate
some of my concerns.

However, this document does seem (at least to me) to contradict
some standards-based IPv6 documents.  For instance, this document
indicates that some features are optional that are listed as
mandatory in other documents (IP Security, DAD, some types of ND
processing, etc.).

>Host Requirement document would be a very good thing.

I mostly agree.  I do have some concerns about defining the host
requirements too early, before we have enough deployment experience
with complete IPv6 implementations to make wise choices.  This may
be a chicken and egg issue, though -- how will we get "complete" IPv6
implementations before we define what that means?  

>should we do nothing?  

I think that we should give guidance, and we have tried to do so
in other documents.  However, I think that we need to be careful
not to give inconsistent or conflicting guidance.  Specifically:

         - We should not publish guidance for cellular vendors
                 that conflicts with our published standards.
                 If the standards are wrong (or fail to take
                 into account all of the cases), we should
                 correct them.
         - The IPv6 WG may not be the correct group to provide
                 guidance regarding transition mechanisms. I
                 believe that the v6trans (or is it still ngtrans?)
                 WG should be responsible for publish advice on
                 the applicability of their mechanisms in 
                 different environments.

Margaret

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:49:40 +0200

Hi Margaret,

> It is possible that some sort of clarifying text could alleviate

That's good - our intention has never been to put anything on
general IPv6 hosts, but how to ensure they would work & work
effectively when connecting to cellular networks.
 
> mandatory in other documents (IP Security, DAD, some types of ND

Let's discuss them.  The authors intended to help give clues to 
implementors about when these functions are useful & were not.
Originally, the 3GPP addressing architecture was a bit different
than what was in the specs, so we were trying to bring that information
out - fortunately, that specific issue has changed.

> implementations before we define what that means?  

Well, this is a chicken & egg scenario.  There are IPv6 implementations,
of course.  Most are not complete according to all of the IPv6 standards.
Without creating some sort of reference document, we run the risk of creating
defacto standards which are contrary to the RFCs.  

Agreed.

>                  the applicability of their mechanisms in 

Well, NGTRANS is discussing transition (from IPv4) to IPv6.  In many
cases, our document is specific to v6, with no coment on v4.  PILC
has been doing some related work, but that WG is getting ready to
close down, and has been focusing their work higher up in the stack.
What I think the authors want from folks in the IPv6 wg is a reality
check that what we are saying is more-or-less OK & should not cause
interop problems.  

John

---

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:11:31 -0500

I'm a little bit concerned about the mobility sections of this
doc.  It recommends supporting two drafts that are far from complete
in the MIP working group (HMIP and fast handovers) and where it's hard
to say exactly how those drafts will dome out.  I'm also not
sure how fast handovers would be used in this context.

Hopefully MIPv6 itself will be done soon....

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?
> 
> 
> 
>  Hi!
> 

Thank You.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:26:34 +0200

Hi Phil,

> sure how fast handovers would be used in this context.

Trust me, the authors have struggled with this issue mightily as well.
We appreciate comments on what level of support we should include
for mobility.

thanks,
John

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:42:03 -0500

Margaret,

First I full support the spec.  Second this is for cellular hosts.  That
may not be end-2-end IP devices or architecture until release 6 of 3GPP.
In the IETF we have specified things according to 2119.  But, this is an
implementation document and implementations may or may not do what we
say here at the end of the day.  Our job is to give them guidelines as
standards.  If vendors and the market pick and choose those there is
NOTHING we can do about it.

To address the issue of the issue this being perceived as IPv6 WG
support.  That again is not our job or fate.  Again thats not how the
market works or other standards bodies.
Info RFC is just that.  Info.  We have statements what all our
progressions mean to Full Standard to Best Current Practice.

I fully support this being move to Info RFC and happen to agree with the
authors implementation guidelines for cellular hosts.

Now I don't agree with all of it for handheld devices that have been
built, being tested, and in trial networks that are by passing the
entire 3G problem of getting to Full IP (which it is not) and using
802.11 and will be using MIPv6 and taking the risk for early markets.
Those handsets have to adhere to our 2119 recommendations for IPv6
specifications as they will use true IPv6 End-2-End for deployment into
the market.

IPv6 is being deployed and mandated now.  This spec for cellular hosts
is correct.

regards,
/jim

> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 11:11 AM
> To: Hesham Soliman (ERA)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:44:30 -0500

I agree with all of Hesham's comments.  Except that this is wg consensus.  I just don't think anyone cares in 3G now they just want a spec like right now.  We can ship this here or we take it elsewhere.  I don't really care cause the spec will work no matter where or how it is published.

/jim

> From: Hesham Soliman (ERA) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 10:57 PM
> To: 'Margaret Wasserman'

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:45:53 -0500

Margaret,

It does not contradict.  It just says they don't apply in this case
which is fine.

/jim

> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:34 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:30:23 -0500

Phil,

The wording is fine.  It does not mandate or cause it to be required.
Many have already implemented draft 15 and will begin deployment and fix
what MIPv6 decides later.

This draft is in the current state and is very clear about the risks.

I see no need to change the drift of that section of the spec.

/jim

> From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]

Thank You.