IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2919D21E80A9; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.408, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UkqJYW4n0w7k; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E2C21E8050; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.corp.zynga.com (host-64-47-153-50.masergy.com [64.47.153.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8BLjNVU081861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:45:25 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <5230E46E.60106@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:45:18 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
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
References: <20130819135219.8236.40060.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr0pqeO9KdcKFWVqWP_5pmZ6fgQ5h4tQ=vOO57d-dg5+DA@mail.gmail.com> <10526_1378283356_5226EF5C_10526_843_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C511C52CE60@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr3SddZio-vHGHK=5smb94HP58cY05_TGgWQpkS3=Ay8_w@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF033645A@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0CUzSDv9H1eCUpMRUjBDS2OCkfsfE+S+3J8Z-_6=uVSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzwYrjyobah-oPWD3vwUeUH5XZ7U=Fqof-f28tneS8jAvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0_yOaDjrH-5K696YaziZZR+EMxdRCf=JZBW5LZgWS45Q@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF06D0A6F@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr3cgJ-xumsMK3eL3zySGsPqXU9uw4L857bJ0VEGcA5mBQ@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF06D0AF5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <179F53B5-6217-49A0-B5FE-A88011533860@delong.com> <CADnDZ89JMCmQfh2YPPJYTh0PFUgyErJc1WJa2C0Rm9tDgJNEQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ89JMCmQfh2YPPJYTh0PFUgyErJc1WJa2C0Rm9tDgJNEQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:45:25 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:45:34 -0000

On 9/11/13 2:40 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> On 9/9/13, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> I have to agree with Lorenzo here again.
>>
>> This document seems to me to be:
>>
>> 	1.	Out of scope for the IETF.
> 
> Please define what is the IETF scope? IMHO, IETF is scoped to do with
> IPv6 devices requirements and implementations. Do you think there is a
> RFC that considers thoes requirements?

The queue for dicussion of this point is closed. If there needs to be an
appeal on this point now or in the future, then I'll be happy to help
someone write it, but I consider that dicussion settled for the purposes
of a draft that has already been tested for wg acceptance/wglc/ietf-lc

> 
>> 	2.	So watered down in its language as to use many words to say nearly
>> nothing.
> 
> No, the draft says things, I think if you read nothing that you did
> not read then. If you read, then what is your definition of saying
> nothing?
> 
>> 	3.	Claims to be informational, but with so many caveats about the nature of
>> that
>> 		information that it's hard to imagine what meaningful information an
>> independent
>> 		reader could glean from the document.
> 
> I think this was mentioned clearly in the draft, which readers can understand.
> 
>>
>> Finally, given the spirited debate that has extended into this last call
>> (which I honestly wonder
>> how this ever saw last call over the sustained objections) definitely does
>> not appear to have
>> even rough consensus, nor does it appear to have running code.
> 
> IMHO, the LC is not for consensus, but it is for us to send the IESG
> our comments, and then they decide what is the IETF decision.
>>
>> Why is there such a push to do this?
> 
> Why is there a push to water-down it? I still was not convinced by
> your argument. However, Lorenzo comments should be considered by the
> draft as the authors are working on.
> 
> AB
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email