RE: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

[<mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Lorenzo,

 

The document explicitly says “This document is not a standard.” since version -00.

What additional statement you would like to see added?

Cheers,

Med

 

De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:01
À : Dave Cridland
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; v6ops@xxxxxxxx WG; BINET David IMT/OLN; IETF Discussion
Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

 

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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]

 

Fair enough. But the document then proceeds to use RFC2119 normative language, which is not appropriate because it's not a standards track document. Normative language is not appropriate for informational documents; there was a big discussion over that for RFC6092, and that ended up being published with a note well saying, "this document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6." You may note that no such "conformance is not required" text is present here. This is at best confusing and at worst misleading.

 

If this document were to plainly state that it simply represents the set of features that a particular set of operators feels is necessary for IPv6 deployment on mobile networks, but that it is not an IETF standard, and compliance with it is not necessary to deploy IPv6 on mobile networks or to claim conformance with IETF standards, I would have no objection to it.