Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx] On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think the high-order points are: 1. The text "This document defines an IPv6 profile for 3GPP mobile devices. It lists the set of features a 3GPP mobile device is to be compliant with to connect to an IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless network" should be replaced with "This document defines an IPv6 profile for 3GPP mobile devices that a number of operators believe is necessary to deploy IPv6 on an IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network)." In place of "a number of operators believe is necessary to deploy" you could have "intend to deploy" or "require". I'd guess that as long as it's clear that the requirements don't come from the IETF but from a number of operators (not all of them, or a majority of them), it doesn't matter exactly what you say. [Med] I made this change: OLD: This document defines an IPv6 profile for 3GPP mobile devices. It lists the set of features a 3GPP mobile device is to be compliant with to connect to an IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network). New: This document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators require in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network). 2. In the normative language section, I'd like to see a statement similar to what's in RFC 6092. Perhaps something like this? [Med] I used the same wording as in RFC6092. The change is as follows: OLD: This document is not a standard. It uses the normative keywords only for precision. NEW: NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6. It uses the normative keywords defined in the previous section only for precision. |