[ipv6-wg] Some comments on 501bis

Based on the discussion in the group today, I made a quick read of the beginning parts of 501bis today at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/other-documents/requirements-for-ipv6-in-ict-equipment

And I have some comments:

> Some parts of this section are loosely based on the NIST/USGv6 profile developed by the US government:
>
> http <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>:// <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>www <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>. <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>antd <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>. <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>nist <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>. <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>gov <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>/ <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>usgv <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>6/ <http://www.antd.nist.gov/usgv6/>
>

There's a DoD *and* USG recommendation, you might want to mention both.

I think it would also be useful to point people to the IETF node requirements RFC, as that defines the formal conformance requirements from a standards perspective (but of course does that only for general nodes, so the more specific rules for different device types in 501 and the NIST documents is very useful). The RFC is about to come out, the -bis version is replacing the RFC that was years old.

>
>     Lists of Required RFC /3GPP Standards for Different Type of Hardware
>
>

... Required RFCs and 3GPP Technical Specifications ...

>
>       Requirements for Host Equipment
>
> *Mandatory support:*
>

I'm comparing this to draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis, and there are some obvious differences. I think it would have been useful to point to this doc for the list of interface-type specific RFCs that are needed (RFC 2464 for Ethernet, for instance).

> Optional support:
> Revised ICMPv6 [RFC 5095] *

This seems wrong. Its not a revised ICMP spec, it is deprecation of RH0. Draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis marks its as mandatory, and I think you should too.

> /*Mobile node:*/In the context of this document a mobile node is a device that connects via some 3GPP specification (such as 3G, GPRS/UMTS or LTE). In situations where the network logic is being provided solely by a dedicated device (A) connected to another device (B), the specification refers to device A and not to device B. If the protocol logic is distributed (for example, a computer with an external Ethernet interface that performs TCP checksum offloading), the aggregate system is being referred to.

There's probably a 3GPP specification and testing requirements etc that defines exactly what the rules for a terminal device like this are. You should reference that and ensure that you're not saying something different. (The expertise on the matter seems to be mostly in 3GPP, so you want to be careful in saying something unless merely referring to existing specs. Maybe you are already doing this, I did not get that far in the spec.)

>  *
>
>     Neighbor Discovery [RFC 4861] *
>
>  *
>
>
>

Updated also by RFC 5942, as noted in draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis

RFC 4311 and 4191 are missing from the list of optional supports.

*
>
> *Mandatory support:*
>
>  *
>
>     MLDv2 snooping [RFC 4541]
>
*
This seems like an overkill for a consumer grade equipment (but I do support it for the other types of switches)

I have to go to the social event now, will look at more things later. But my overall conclusion is that the document still needs more review...

Jari