On 9/9/13 4:24 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > The document explicitly says “This document is not a standard.” > since version -00. > > __ __ > > What additional statement you would like to see added? > > > 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. So this is a problem, and part of the reason I had enough concern about this document to not take it forward. being genereous the consensus on this document is pretty rough. if the outcome doesn't include the consent of implementors it's not very good advice. > 2. In the normative language section, I'd like to see a statement > similar to what's in RFC 6092. Perhaps something like this? > > 1.3. Use of Normative Keywords > > NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard. Conformance with it is > not required to deploy IPv6 in mobile networks or to claim conformance > with IETFstandards for IPv6. It uses the normative keywords > defined in the > previous section only for precision. > > Regards, > Lorenzo