AW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt

[<Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de>]

see below 

---- snip -----
....
> 
> 
> "Section 4.1 WAN side configuration
> 
>  WLL-1:  The IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over Ethernet 
> [RFC2464]."
> 
> 
> I don't see how that can be a MUST when the WAN interface may not
> support Ethernet framing e.g. a 3G/HSPDA or Wimax IPv6 CS WAN 
> interface.
> Similarly for the PPPoE requirement (and arguably for the PPP
> requirement) - 
> 
> "WLL-2:  The IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over PPP [RFC5072] and
>            PPPoE [RFC2516].  In a dual-stack environment with IPCP and
>            IPV6CP running over one PPP logical channel, the 
> NCPs MUST be
>            treated as independent of each other and start and 
> terminate
>            independently."
> 
> I think it would be better to try to avoid making anything relating to
> IPv6-over-foo support MUSTs, keeping the scope to IPv6 CPE
> requirements. If IPv6-over-foo functions are in scope for the draft,
> then I'd suggest making treating them as separate sections, saying
> something like, "If the WAN interface supports Ethernet encapsulation,
> then it MUST support IPv6 over Ethernet [RFC2464] and PPP [RFC5072]
> and PPPoE [RFC2516].", "If the WAN interface supports ATM 
> encapsulation,
> then it MUST support PPPoA [RFCXXXX]" etc.
> 
> A future CPE's lack of compliance with this draft just because it
> doesn't support Ethernet framing on it's WAN interface would 
> be a shame.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark.
....
---- snip ----- 

Although I see and understand Marks point I think that it would be very helpful to have these statements/requirements somewhere in the document since these are the missing points why such a document makes sense and provides good input for the CPE vendors.

Perhaps it should be written down in a kind of "IF -THAN" language, like
"If the WAN interface of the CE uses Ethernet framing than the CPE MUST support ..." or
"If the WAN interface of the CE uses PPP/PPPoE than in a dual-stack environment with IPCP and IPV6CP running over one PPP logical channel, the NCPs MUST be treated as independent of each other and ...".

Regards
	Olaf