Browsing through the document I am not sure how much weight is carries
when an IETF working group defines what 3GPP networks should be doing,
particularly when talking about protocols the 3GPP has not really
expressed an opinion about.
From the document it is unclear to me what requirements are directly
taken from 3GPP specifications and what additional requirements the
authors have added.
On 09.09.2013 13:19, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I'm just saying it here so that everyone in the community can see
it. If it's an IETF document it has to have IETF consensus, and
since I feel that the arguments were not properly taken into account
in the WG (read: ignored), I think it's important that the community
see them before we publish this document.
I'm not sure the consensus requirement you're suggesting actually
exists. This is aiming at Informational, and as such:
An"Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
[RFC 2026 §4.2.2]
But the IETF doesn't define profile documents. The IETF defines
technical standards on the basis of rough consensus and running
code. What you're saying is "since we don't have running code that
does what we want, we're trying to define a profile in the hope that
someone will write the code". That's not the way it works.
No, the IETF has published profile documents in a number of cases. One
could argue that RFC 1122 and RFC 1123 are both profile documents,
actually, but there are other specific examples, like the Lemonade
profile, for example.
I suspect, however, that this document is actually a standard, or
intended as one. There's discussion about conformance, about testing for
conformance, and so on, which suggests that an operator (in particular)
might treat any resultant RFC as a standard without regard for its IETF
status. That's a concern, though in practise, if this is to be a
document detailing "what operators want", I'd be happier that it's
published through the IETF as Informational than not published at all -
and in any case, no amount of pretence will alter the fact that people
will treat any RFC as a standard if it suits them anyway.
What may be more useful, though, would be to get more stakeholders
involved in a commonly agreed profile, and supercede this.
Dave.