On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:45 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is the second iteration of this document to be IETF Last Called having
previously been here at draft 04. Substantial changes to the document have
occurred inclusive of the removal of much of the normative language.
That assessment of the changes is incorrect, unless "removal of the normative language" means "replace all upper-case MUST with lower-case must".
The diff from -04 to -13 is at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url1=draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt&url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-13.txt . The attentive reader will see that that most of the text is identical.
That aside:
1. This text is incorrect and should be removed:
The key words "must", "must not", "should", "should not", and "may"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
It is meaningless to say, in the same document, that "must" is to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 ("an absolute requirement of the specification"), and simultaneously that "this document is not a standard".
2. I stand by my earlier assessment that this document's requirements are over-broad, and in fact so broad as to harm adoption. There may well be operators or device implementers that seeing with such a high number of requirements may shy away in terror and think that deploying IPv6 in a mobile network is an impossibly high amount of work. That said, given that this document says clearly that it is not a standard, and that compliance is not required, the harm it does will be limited.
Regards,
Lorenzo