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 Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM, <[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.

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). 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.

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.

Oh, and I know it's a bit out of fashion, but: what happened to "running
code"? Are there *any* implementations of all this?