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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Lorenzo

Answers below

David

________________________________
De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Lorenzo Colitti
Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2013 10:04
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : [e-mail] WG; 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 Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

it is about ** a ** profile for mobile devices.

But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended profile? If, so then the document should state why. If not, then the document should state that this is just one possible profile, and that the IETF does not recommend for or against it.
[[david]] It is a profile proposed by several operators and supported by other ones. Maybe you have some other proposition for mobile profile but as operators, this list of requirements fits our needs.

I think the fundamental problem with this document is that it does not provide solid reasons for why all 34 requirements need to be implemented (and personally, I think that's because it just can't - there *are* no solid reasons).
[[david]] Did you mention that not all requirements are mandatory ? It gives flexibility to operators to define what they are expecting from vendors.
 The draft seems implies that all these requirements must be met to deploy IPv6 on mobile devices, but that's not true. A great example is the statement in the abstract which says that this document "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". This statement is false: there are tens of millions of mobile devices using IPv6 every day, and none of them meet more than a minority of the requirements in this document.
[[david]] Do you mean that the current status regarding IPv6 support in devices is fine and that there is no need for other features in mobile devices ? Some devices have been connected to IP networks for tens of years now and it does not mean we should not add new features to these devices to enable new services. We are considering, as operators, that current IPv6 features in mobile devices do not satisfy all our needs as mentioned in the document.

I know we've already gone over this in the WG, but since this is IETF last call, I think the rest of the community should see this discussion so that we collectively know what the arguments for and against this proposal and can reach informed consensus.
[[david]] OK

Oh, and I know it's a bit out of fashion, but: what happened to "running code"? Are there *any* implementations of all this?
[[david]] We expect some implementations and we are thinking that such kind of document may be useful to get some.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.