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>]

Re,

 

I have considered that Lorenzo. “is not required to deploy IPv6” would be accurate if this document is dealing only with dual-stack, but this is not true for the IPv6-only mode. The set of SHOULD recommendations are targeting that deployment model.

 

Cheers,

Med

 

 

De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx]
Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2013 08:49
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : Dave Cridland; 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 9:16 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

 

 

That's better, thanks. I still think it's important for the document to say that it's not necessary to do all mountain of work to deploy IPv6, because otherwise there's the risk that product managers/implementors will say, "Wait, are you're saying that to deploy IPv6 we have to do all that work? We can't do all that. Let's focus on something else instead."

 

How about changing "is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6" to "is not required to deploy IPv6 on other networks or to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6"?