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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Tue, 20 August 2013 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75BF11E814C for <>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.678
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sUStFEJlYuwz for <>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3024311E8128 for <>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j6so256454oag.28 for <>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=DZPCBM3NwRWeXgwzENQOWenrjemQzOMP/GDFuZ+Sn0Y=; b=kS799GDK89wAqG49vcNzm0TOCyP5te6tL5aEEkFIG35UDGraieiNGmFvEP4sg0MWPq 0HKwGI2LC8lslAgfeg5D1GnWkf2evpJYyhOlnBqKF/0qSJSgLCSyH0aGaUf8xE4g4hcf AZNMsqAR6J6M048+IzfBfa9CmrhIrUDe1rPqoVIsdDz3Z/Imiiyr+AiXTRX94dHb+WYh wNskG+86UEB4C0e8VNX1Di0FCjKbTwHzZ4qXJhzszu3cafS1QrO0B1ths+EFyfpjmb6y Kw450SSSmMzT2Base6S44NZERnk0XpymrO2CTUrSatJQwzeluh3PA4vgHdvWK8S6fLcs GG+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=DZPCBM3NwRWeXgwzENQOWenrjemQzOMP/GDFuZ+Sn0Y=; b=E/hQR34/K/LsBv4gSqnyseuYDVVNJJFgp0G42bus1JqT2fXkFr6KzbTXkfhS4A3uKF b/M+nLuDNO5UKPRbCMGvHiyG9Kwn9oBhrp5s5Es427A4RW7sAfsc7HsZPOngMOy35dAg v/H6RMreMpJ7chvFZ9IYacbmHB8KwGWZmljRXILl2Yg0tfB17J1qHDQmpZHk1dl03md2 XVtOPsyN6ahrj/BoEA8e/np+YJIty1+FRu1eW8kbdq+HRaGhNKYs+rJI4DGRY+TxteQ7 bV4clCBPdBZXJ5sgXhAKWfAE51RFiZ5vztmXxt1QQpQ/gVfrQUpWoj6jm7JUlZsPKrGI EQyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk6JlDNvq2rOrOmj0FQFC4gqINptVl9thQ9HYOUVTYYcW2rPLyZIvJCbo1RUxgumT6V/bd14iLrPgUKKrHIRXJVXoJNYgHogQ+Frl7HpRu8BQGG0chbIBX1CQQvXrAOkl5M9TzBS8GZ12bIJ+Hz3DgXN0MkAPWbjZoAiHvnWXMJy8YTM+KtFi9kh8njyrD2F2vpxylU
X-Received: by with SMTP id oc1mr4412691igb.49.1376991579484; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:39:18 +0900
Message-ID: <>
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
To: IETF Discussion <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e153bf470f504e45dd536
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:07:58 -0700
Cc: " WG" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:39:41 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:39:41 -0000

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM, The IESG <> wrote:

>    This document specifies 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).

I object to this document on the grounds that it is little more than a list
of (34!) features with little technical justification. I see this as a
problem because:

1. It is out of the IETF's mandate. It is not the IETF's job to specify
which features or protocols should or should not be implemented in hosts.
Even the hosts requirements RFCs are careful and sparing in their language.
The IETF is certainly not in the business of rubberstamping feature
wishlists without good technical reasons. I would challenge the authors to
find a precedent RFC containing such broad requirements.

2. It is over-broad. The vast majority of the features are in no way
necessary to build a mobile device that works well over IPv6. Today, the
overwhelming majority of mobile device traffic comes from devices that
implement only a handful of these requirements. More specifically,
requirements #3, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20,
#21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27 (a whole RFC!), #28, #29, #31, #32 (which
cover all applications running on the device - yes, all of them), and #34,
are not necessary to connect to IPv6 mobile networks.

3. It is so daunting as to act as a deterrent to IPv6 deployment. I would
challenge the authors to find a single product today that implements all,
or even a substantial majority, of these requirements. It seems to me that
the sheer length of the list, and the fact that is not prioritized, create
a real risk that implementors will simply write it off as wishful thinking
or even shy away in terror.

4. The document has few technical contributions of its own. Most of the
requirements are simply listed one after another.

I'm all for IPv6 deployment in mobile networks, but making a list of what
seems like all the features that the IETF has ever developed, and then
saying that they all need to be implemented, is not the way to get there.
The way to do it is to document use cases and working scenarios gleaned
from operational experience.