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

[Owen DeLong <owen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have to agree with Lorenzo here again.

This document seems to me to be:

1. Out of scope for the IETF.

2. So watered down in its language as to use many words to say nearly nothing.

3. Claims to be informational, but with so many caveats about the nature of that

information that it's hard to imagine what meaningful information an independent

reader could glean from the document.

Finally, given the spirited debate that has extended into this last call (which I honestly wonder

how this ever saw last call over the sustained objections) definitely does not appear to have

even rough consensus, nor does it appear to have running code.

Why is there such a push to do this?

Owen

On Sep 9, 2013, at 05:16 , <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Re-,

 

Please see inline.

 

Cheers,

Med

 

De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com] 
Envoyé : lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24
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 8:06 PM, <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.

[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.

 

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops