RE: 3gpp-analysis: IMS/SIP transition [RE: NAT-PT Applicabilty fo r 3GPP]

["Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB)" <karim.el-malki@ericsson.com>]

 > > - we document a higher level solution and refer to 
 > SIP(PING) wg to make a generic solution
 > >
 > >     "This section presents higher level details of a 
 > solution based on
 > >     the use of a translator and SIP ALG. [3GPPtr] provides 
 > additional
 > >     information and presents a bit different solution 
 > proposal based on
 > >     SIP Edge Proxy and IP Address/Port Mapper. The authors 
 > recommend to
 > >     solve the general SIP/SDP IPv4/IPv6 transition problem 
 > in the IETF
 > >     SIP wg(s)."
 > 
 > Consider a slight rewording here.
 > 
 > s/"general SIP/SDP IPv4/IPv6 transition"/"SIP/SDP signalling"/

Makes little sense since the SIP WG already has SIP/SDP signalling
specs! I think it should stay since the SIP work will be on IPv6/v4
translation.

 > 
 > And add:
 > 
 >   NAT-PT header translation mechanism may be used in conjunction with
 >   the [3GPPtr] mechanism. NAT(P)T-PT will perform header translation,
 >   using the binding supplied by [3GPPtr].

Disagree as I explained in past emails.

 > 
 > >
 > > - because NAT-PT is the closest possible (=PS RFC) 
 > solution to be used in this "Interworking Unit" as a 
 > translator, we state:
 > >
 > >    " We call the combined network element on
 > >     the edge of the IPv6-only IMS an "Interworking Unit" in this
 > >     document. A SIP-specific translation mechanism, which 
 > could e.g.
 > >     re-use limited subsets of NAT-PT [RFC2766], needs to 
 > be specified.
 > >     The problems related to NAT-PT are discussed in appendix A. "
 > 
 > Replace
 > 
 >       A SIP-specific translation mechanism, which could e.g.
 >      re-use limited subsets of NAT-PT [RFC2766], needs to be 
 > specified.
 > 
 > with
 > 
 >      A SIP-specific mechanism to handle signalling traffic, 
 > that would
 >      work in conjunction with NAT-PT [RFC2766], needs to be 
 > specified.

Again disagree.

The analysis draft IMO is fine as is.

/Karim