Subject: Request to Advance "Recommendations for IPv6 in 3GPP Standards"

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:58:22 -0800

Erik, Thomas,

The chairs of the IPv6 working group, on behalf of the working group, 
request that the following document be published as an Informational RFC:

	Title		: Recommendations for IPv6 in 3GPP Standards
	Author(s)	: M. Wasserman
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipv6-3gpp-recommend-00.txt
	Pages		: 22
	Date		: 22-Jan-02

A working group last call for this document was completed on March 11, 2002.

Bob Hinden / Steve Deering
IPv6 Working Group Co-Chairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:28:15 -0500

I've completed my pre-IESG review of the document and have the
following comments.

Overall, I think this document is good. The following comments are
relatively minor and should be easy to address.

The abstract could be better. For example, it might actually say what
the recommendations are. :-) (see http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html.)

Could use more references in places (e.g., NAT, NAT-PT, GTP-U, etc.)
This is particularly true in the definitions section.

>     The GRPS core network elements shown in Figures 1 and 2 are the

s/GRPS/GPRS/

It might be good to include some more background about the seattle
meeting that led to this particular document. I'm thinking of a reader
a couple of years from now who wasn't there and not knowing the
background.

Might be good to reference specific documents in 3GPP and or the time
frame. This document is a reaction to 3GPP draft specs at a certain
point in time that have since changed (or will be when folks later
read this document). It would be good to make clear to the reader that
this is the case. This comment is related to the previous paragraph as
well.

Also, would it make sense to add a section saying that 3GPP has
adopted the changes? (i.e, and cite the meeting?) It might be good for
the document to say that the ID has already achieved its main purpose
and is being published for the historical record.

The document has URLs embedded in the document. It would be better to
put them all in the references section. Also, are they all stable? I
suspect not. For example, the ARIN minutes reference no longer
works... (I haven't checked the others.)

    There is an ongoing effort to define a set of requirements for
    cellular hosts [CELLREQ].  This work has been presented to the IPv6
    WG, but has not been adopted as an IPv6 WG work item.  This work
    should be continued within the working group, and may feed into a
    broader effort to define the requirements for all IPv6 nodes.

Needs updating. Also is this too detailed for the the final RFC?

Thomas