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 <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, <[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.

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