On 9/9/13 1:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I have to agree with Lorenzo here again. > > This document seems to me to be: > > 1.Out of scope for the IETF. AD here... let's put this one to bed. there are existance proof(s) of previous work in this area and others that covers similar ground. I don't believe that this is out of scope for the WG or the IETF, Neither did the previous AD. So... Focus on the contents. > 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 > <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > >> Re-, >> >> Please see inline. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >> *De :* Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx <http://google.com/>] >> *Envoyé :* lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24 >> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN >> *Cc :* Dave Cridland; v6ops@xxxxxxxx <mailto: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 >> <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. >> */[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 <mailto:v6ops@xxxxxxxx> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >