Pekka Savola | 1 May 17:14 2002
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-soininen-ngtrans-3gpp-cases-00.txt

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 	Title		: Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks
> 	Author(s)	: J. Soininen et al.
> 	Filename	: draft-soininen-ngtrans-3gpp-cases-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 6
> 	Date		: 22-Apr-02
> 	
> This document describes different scenarios in Third Generation 
> Partnership Project (3GPP) defined packet network, i.e. General 
> Packet Radio Service (GPRS) that would need IP version 6 and IP 
> version 4 transition. The focus of this document is on the scenarios 
> where the User Equipment (UE) connects to nodes in other networks, 
> e.g. in the Internet. GPRS network internal transition scenarios, 
> i.e. between different GPRS elements in the network, are out of scope 
> of this document.   
> The purpose of the document is to list the scenarios for further 
> discussion and study.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-soininen-ngtrans-3gpp-cases-00.txt

A few comments:

Abstract  

   This document describes different scenarios in Third Generation
   Partnership Project (3GPP) defined packet network, i.e. General 
   Packet Radio Service (GPRS) [...]
(Continue reading)

Jonne.Soininen | 1 May 21:43 2002
Picon

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-soininen-ngtrans-3gpp-cases-00.txt

Hi Pekka,

thank you for you comments. Some answers/comments bellow:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas <at> netcore.fi]
> 
> 
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-soininen-ngtrans-3gpp-cases-00.txt

A few comments:

Abstract  

   This document describes different scenarios in Third Generation
   Partnership Project (3GPP) defined packet network, i.e. General 
   Packet Radio Service (GPRS) [...]

==> If you only consider GPRS, why name the document '3GPP Networks'?

JSo: GPRS is the name of the packet switched side of the 3GPP System. Thus, the only part of the 3GPP System
that is really applicable in this context. (The 'other part' would be cirquit switched domain of 3GPP, but
that does not seem relevant.)

==> It is not absolutely clear to me why UMTS would not require some 
transitional mechanisms too (e.g. IPv6 -> IPv4).  However, I don't know 
the architecture well enough to really comment on it.

(Continue reading)

Pekka Savola | 2 May 08:11 2002
Picon

Re: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-soininen-ngtrans-3gpp-cases-00.txt

On Wed, 1 May 2002 Jonne.Soininen <at> nokia.com wrote:
> ==> If you only consider GPRS, why name the document '3GPP Networks'?
> 
> JSo: GPRS is the name of the packet switched side of the 3GPP System.
> Thus, the only part of the 3GPP System that is really applicable in this
> context. (The 'other part' would be cirquit switched domain of 3GPP, but
> that does not seem relevant.)

Ok.  People associate the name 'GPRS' with something else, though..

> ==> you're making assumptions how GPRS network would be built?  Would it
> be possible that GPRS network would be v4-only (except for GGSN), but UE's
> IPv6-only?  Again, this might just be my lack of knowledge on 3GPP 
> networks.
> 
> JSo: It was tried not to make assumptions. However, rather just document
> what the possibilitites are. Now that I read the wording again, it might
> not be very clear: In this scenario, the UE and the GGSN are the only
> IPv6 capable equipment in the network. (GGSN is the default router for
> the UE, and thus, the first node in the network that the UE sees.)
> Everything else is IPv4.

GGSN being the default router ie. the first-hop router, certainly 
clarifies this scenario.

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

(Continue reading)

Randy Bush | 2 May 18:47 2002

draft-ietf-ngtrans-bia-05.txt

just passed the iesg with two hacks needed for rfced in the 24 hour notice
time.

the reference is to [NAT] but the refs section is [NAT-PT]

SHOULD is used but the boilerplate for 2119 is missing

randy

Kazuaki Tsuchiya | 10 May 13:27 2002
Picon

Re: Review of draft-ietf-ngtrans-mtp-01.txt

Dear Brian,

I have to apologize to you for long delay firstly.  m(_ _)m
(I had been on vacation for these two weeks. Lots of Japanese
  enjoy vacation for about ten days at this time. We call it
  "Golden Week.")

Anyway, I am going to check on your question and answer them
as soon as possible.

Thanks for your review.

-- Kazuaki Tsuchiya, Hitachi.

At 22:54 02/04/30 +0900, owner-ngtrans <at> sunroof.eng.sun.com wrote:
>The following are comments on draft-ietf-ngtrans-mtp-01.txt.  I
>apologize for not getting them to the list sooner.
>
>      1. The discussion of MTP talks about header translation, but
>         does not discuss the use of ALGs to handle multicast apps
>         that include IP addresses in the application layer.  Those
>         addresses may be unicast or multicast.  How will MTP deal
>         with those?
>
>      2. Has anyone done an analysis on how the translations will
>         affect RTP/RTCP feedback?
>
>      3. This draft needs some more work on fragment handling.
>         Will an MTP node perform fragment re-assembly on the
>         packets before doing the translation?
(Continue reading)

The IESG | 14 May 15:15 2002
Picon

Document Action: Dual Stack Hosts using 'Bump-in-the-API' (BIA) to Experimental


The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Dual Stack Hosts using
'Bump-in-the-API' (BIA)' <draft-ietf-ngtrans-bia-05.txt> as a
Experimental.  This document is the product of the Next Generation
Transition Working Group.  The IESG contact persons are Bert Wijnen and
Randy Bush.

itojun | 21 May 15:07 2002
Picon

charter discussion

	at Minneapolis (IETF53) there was a presentation from Tony Hain about
	re-chartering.  are there any progress on this topic?  any draft for
	new charter/goals?

itojun

Tony Hain | 21 May 22:46 2002
Picon

RE: charter discussion

Not specifically. The chairs have a call scheduled tomorrow where we
plan to discuss the status of the teams that are documenting scenarios,
and the charter. We will let you know as soon as we have something to
report.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ngtrans <at> sunroof.eng.sun.com
> [mailto:owner-ngtrans <at> sunroof.eng.sun.com]On Behalf Of
> itojun <at> iijlab.net
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 6:07 AM
> To: ngtrans <at> sunroof.eng.sun.com
> Subject: (ngtrans) charter discussion
>
>
> 	at Minneapolis (IETF53) there was a presentation from
> Tony Hain about
> 	re-chartering.  are there any progress on this topic?
> any draft for
> 	new charter/goals?
>
> itojun

Elwyn Davies | 22 May 11:14 2002

RE: charter discussion

Hi.

You seem to imply from this that there are teams in progress documenting scenarios. Can you (any of the WG chairs) confirm if this is the case as there does not appear to have been any public discussion of the start of such work beyond the presentation at Minneapolis?  If there is work in progress, what scenarios are being studied? I note that whilst such work is in the general objectives of the WG there are as yet no specific milestones for it.

Regards,
Elwyn Davies

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Hain [mailto:alh-ietf <at> tndh.net]
> Sent: 21 May 2002 21:47
> To: itojun <at> iijlab.net; ngtrans <at> sunroof.eng.sun.com
> Subject: RE: (ngtrans) charter discussion
>
>
> Not specifically. The chairs have a call scheduled tomorrow where we
> plan to discuss the status of the teams that are documenting
> scenarios,
> and the charter. We will let you know as soon as we have something to
> report.
>
> Tony
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ngtrans <at> sunroof.eng.sun.com
> > [mailto:owner-ngtrans <at> sunroof.eng.sun.com]On Behalf Of
> > itojun <at> iijlab.net
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 6:07 AM
> > To: ngtrans <at> sunroof.eng.sun.com
> > Subject: (ngtrans) charter discussion
> >
> >
> >     at Minneapolis (IETF53) there was a presentation from
> > Tony Hain about
> >     re-chartering.  are there any progress on this topic?
> > any draft for
> >     new charter/goals?
> >
> > itojun
>
>

Bob Fink | 23 May 04:25 2002
Picon

Internet-Draft Cutoff Dates for Yokohama, Japan


>To: IETF-Announce: ;
>From: Internet-Drafts Administrator <internet-drafts <at> ietf.org>
>Subject: Internet-Draft Cutoff Dates for Yokohama, Japan
>Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:01:20 -0400
>Sender: nsyracus <at> cnri.reston.va.us
>
>
>NOTE: There are two (2) Internet-Draft Cutoff dates
>
>June 24th: Cutoff for Initial Submissions (new documents)
>
>All initial submissions(-00) must be submitted by Monday,
>June  24th,  at 09:00 US-EST. Initial submissions received after this time
>will NOT be made available in the Internet-Drafts directory, and will have
>to be resubmitted.
>
>As before, all initial submissions (-00.txt) with a filename beginning
>with a draft-ietf MUST be approved by the appropriate WG Chair prior to
>processing and announcing. WG Chair approval must be received by
>Monday, June 24th.
>
>  Please do NOT wait until the last minute to submit.
>
>Be advised: NO placeholders. Updates to initial submissions received
>             the week of June 24th will NOT be accepted.
>
>July 1st: FINAL Internet-Draft Cutoff
>
>All revised Internet-Draft submissions must be submitted by Monday,
>July 1st, 2002 at 09:00 US-EST. Internet-Drafts received after this time
>will NOT be announced NOR made available in the Internet-Drafts
>Directories.
>
>We will begin accepting Internet-Draft submissions the week of the
>meeting, though announcements will NOT be sent until the IETF meeting
>is over.
>
>Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Please do not hesitate
>to contact us if you have any questions or concenrs.
>
>FYI: These and other significant dates can be found at
>       http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_54.html


Gmane