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 Joel,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : joel jaeggli [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2013 06:42
>À : Lorenzo Colitti; BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
>Cc : [e-mail] WG; IETF Discussion; BINET David IMT/OLN
>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 9/9/13 4:24 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.
>
>So this is a problem, and part of the reason I had enough concern about
>this document to not take it forward. being genereous the consensus on
>this document is pretty rough. if the outcome doesn't include the
>consent of implementors it's not very good advice.

[Med] Joel, the intent of the document is clear: the goals and scope are unchanged since the individual submission.  You can read the following in the introduction: 

"   This document specifies an IPv6 profile for mobile devices listing
   specifications produced by various Standards Developing Organizations
   (in particular 3GPP and IETF).  The objectives of this effort are:

   1.  List in one single document a comprehensive list of IPv6 features
       for a mobile device, including both IPv6-only and dual-stack
       mobile deployment contexts.  These features cover various network
       types such as GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), EPC (Evolved
       Packet Core) or IEEE 802.11 network.

   2.  Help Operators with the detailed device requirement list
       preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers).  This is
       also a contribution to harmonize Operators' requirements towards
       device vendors.

   3.  Vendors to be aware of a set of features to allow for IPv6
       connectivity and IPv4 service continuity (over an IPv6-only
       transport)."

Operators will use this profile  (or some part of it (context-based: ipv6-only, DS, CPE model, etc.)) for further discussion with their vendors. We are not changing that process. This document is a contribution to have non broken IPv6 implementations. 

For instance, our device partners will see in our 500 pages device requirements document (OGDR) pointers to this profile document. So adding the text suggested by Lorenzo is fine by me. This is the change added to my local copy:

   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).

Having consent form all vendors is valuable but I'm afraid this is not the goal of this document. 

How can we ensure every implementers will agree with this list? For instance we have two detailed technical reviewers from vendors who are happy with the content of the document ... but in the meantime I have two reviewers from the same company: one of them suggested to make some edits to enhance the document while the other reviewer have some concerns. The concerns of the second reviewer were addressed and changes were added to my local copy.

>
>> 2. In the normative language section, I'd like to see a statement
>> similar to what's in RFC 6092. Perhaps something like this?
>>
>> 1.3.  Use of Normative Keywords
>>
>>       NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard. Conformance with it is
>>       not required to deploy IPv6 in mobile networks or to claim
>conformance
>>       with IETFstandards for IPv6.  It uses the normative keywords
>> defined in the
>>       previous section only for precision.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lorenzo