Subject: More comments needed! [WG Last Call: 3GPP Analysis Document]

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:03:22 +0300

Hi all!

The wglc for 3GPP Analysis
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-06.txt
ended on Oct 14th. Quite many comments were given, and these 
were the main "open issues" before starting the wglc:
- tunneling in the UE (what is the exact recommendation)
- what is the exact recommendation on NAT-PT or other generic 
  translation mechanisms (well, I think this is quite much solved, and
  we can refer to NAT-PT applicability doc that will be published soon)
- need to discourage IPv6-only UE deployment until the transition
  has progressed further
- listing BGP/IGP based tunnels as a solution alternative in the 
  3GPP operator's network; or do we leave all such details to 
  ISP document?
- closer details for IMS scenario 1 solution; to be specified elsewhere 
  (Sipping wg)?

The comments included:
- Alain Durand's (high level) comments -> some edits will be done based 
  on those comments
- Based on Jasminko Mulahusic's comments, especially text in 3.2.2 
   was modified
- Jasminko M. also recommended going forward with this document
- quite many operator comments from Andreas Schmid; lengthy discussion
  in which Pekka S. and others were also involved.

=> So, what to do next?

It is inevitable that a new revision is needed (deadline before Minneapolis is Oct 27th,
so basically one week time for that). But before that, I would like to know what the chairs
are thinking about the situation. 

I would also like to get more wg comments, at least comments like:

 A) I support moving forward with this document (and I have these comments...), or
 B) I don't support moving forward with this doucment, because...

Many thanks,
	         -Juha W.-

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:29:30 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

Folks, please read the document and send comments.  We really can't go 
forward with this yet!

I had hoped to send the document to the IESG before Minneapolis IETF, but
with the low level of input from the WG this doesn't seem to reasonable at
this phase.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
[...]
> - Alain Durand's (high level) comments -> some edits will be done based 
[...]

One item which may need to be discussed also is whether folks feel the 
ipv4-only SIP is a worthy goal for 3GPP, i.e., whether the IMS translation 
is necessary.

>   in which Pekka S. and others were also involved.

I think these comments call for, at least, some description of the 3GPP UE 
being used as a "modem" (without a need to implement v6 on it), and maybe 
some text/consideration how configured tunneling could be made easier (my 
belief is that it should be doable..)

> It is inevitable that a new revision is needed (deadline before
> Minneapolis is Oct 27th, so basically one week time for that). But
> before that, I would like to know what the chairs are thinking about the
> situation.

<wg chair hat=on>

A new revision would not hurt.  However, there would really need to be 
more discussion/pull from the WG before we can ship the document to the 
IESG as there are a number of contious issues.

I'd recomment revising the document before the cut-off, and giving a 
presentation at Minneapolis (will you be there, or will someone else do 
it?) on the major issues which need discussion -- we might be able get 
some input how to proceed there and be able to revise the document after 
Minneapolis and ship it them.

<wg chair hat=off>
-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings