On Sep 9, 2013, at 13:36 , Vízdal Aleš <ales.viz...@t-mobile.cz> wrote:
> Please see inline. > > Ales > > From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Owen DeLong > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:07 PM > To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; Dave Cridland; IETF Discussion > Subject: 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 > > I have to agree with Lorenzo here again. > > This document seems to me to be: > > 1. Out of scope for the IETF. > [av] Strongly disagree. The IETF as the IPv6 owner is the right place to > define what qualifies a device to be IPv6 compliant. (a mobile one in this > case) > This is intended as "informational", not a standards track document, so it does not do that. > 2. So watered down in its language as to use many words to > say nearly nothing. > [av] Hints on how the text shall be changed are always welcome. If you don't leave it watered down, it becomes a standards track document. There appears to be even greater resistance to that, so I don't see such a document as being likely to achieve any greater degree of consensus. > > 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. > [av] The reader will learn what must/should/may be > implemented in a mobile device to support IPv6. Except that this document is clearly marked as informational and not standards track and there fore the application of must/should/may to it is seemingly rather absurd. > > 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. > [av] Med has posted an answer on this one earlier in the thread. > I was not entirely satisfied with his answer. > Why is there such a push to do this? > [av] Because the Operators are currently missing such a document, so they > went to the IETF to work on one. > As written in the document the number of well behaving IPv6 capable mobile > devices is not very high at the moment. > This initiative is intended to help the developers. Is there any reason a cellphone shouldn't just meet the standard requirements like any other router? Owen > > Owen > > On Sep 9, 2013, at 05:16 , <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > > > Re-, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] > Envoyé : lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : Dave Cridland; v6...@ietf.org 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.boucad...@orange.com> 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 > v6...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
