On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM, <david.binet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended profile? If, so then the document should state why. If not, then the document should state that this is just one possible profile, and that the IETF does not recommend for or against it.[[david]] It is a profile proposed by several operators and supported by other ones. Maybe you have some other proposition for mobile profile but as operators, this list of requirements fits our needs.
Ok. So maybe you can put in the draft that this profile is a profile supported by several operators, but not necessarily endorsed by the IETF?
I think the fundamental problem with this document is that it does not provide solid reasons for why all 34 requirements need to be implemented (and personally, I think that's because it just can't - there *are* no solid reasons).[[david]] Did you mention that not all requirements are mandatory ? It gives flexibility to operators to define what they are expecting from vendors.
Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The considerations that the IETF deals with are primarily technical, and "we want this stuff from our vendors" is not a technical issue.
Some devices have been connected to IP networks for tens of years now and it does not mean we should not add new features to these devices to enable new services. We are considering, as operators, that current IPv6 features in mobile devices do not satisfy all our needs as mentioned in the document.
And how is it that you as an operator need all devices to meet requirement #28 (a cellphone MUST also be a CPE router)? How can you say that it's necessary to facilitate deployment?
Oh, and I know it's a bit out of fashion, but: what happened to "running code"? Are there *any* implementations of all this?[[david]] We expect some implementations and we are thinking that such kind of document may be useful to get some.
Remember, the IETF is supposed to be about rough consensus and running code. Can we wait until there is at least one implementation that does all this before we publish the document?