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 <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 04 September 2013 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 B50FE21E80B2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 01:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.654
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 phutgKtJ+341 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 01:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0873921E80B0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 01:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id a14so27143iee.12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 01:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=mSOT87OwbY2OWDeLZdcxYjWsSo/IGlI19PjiBwzRJmU=; b=axIh9M9Bq/lSrN7Aua8EGQJrG120hRB/f/IgJ4FGt5xh1Aza/E9XZ2y6xzRdw11/Vz efehcIYvQKmVJbbrrPynFxts82rS4R0fwjtb5h17BnpudGbc5sWZkNrrpfB/ehdlCQrc HkGEchD53U4O7wX5bvz5DceYnL18ZC+/8aOokhMQLwkFuTT2lzZPsSMDzXGoeGkk5Gpd 18mr4B8TZ2kSXDXvPYiXWcIQRt3yWqL/P1lefYtQmN7Z+ceic1ZhcWbQrAH+k5zvxCDM qWiJQoZfojt/93LH4MyM0osPOJ9VojUjnFfxtngGHKOSGHqcszM3ses5zYeIRHJfPH05 BfLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=mSOT87OwbY2OWDeLZdcxYjWsSo/IGlI19PjiBwzRJmU=; b=LE4GlqKbD6WHSEzDMd1oMrVZGMkP2bY/Q1FLmqUMD9zsnxmffeWWhNljwVQihY7Gzm UQAglQRRGLAg0QKzk6hdDH3roolhlJ5+xFmT+PgUolUMTLHNjcgyRqAhEemy01U5AX0g foPY7uibdz1vF5Yh/eXJtSuCbIinV/ZOZKKoVo3HJwUE7hLGPSfBz2rWqgoiRG5nM43o qNT7GEGT5vPuqNxPvSTqAVuH28u/mAql6StVlhvrzscV2q9s05XYiY1ieZZg42xbBYx8 qfHF6OTcZTQ0bwrF0f85g8So9qdpmFntJTN0UurBciSeiaa1Q+H01qzmG6EuS42If1DH svPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmtTTNfIrnS7e/rFnPkUfartsti8dQSH7/w4Ttm+Z83pN98tBLaUm3VLwC0WyjYczGoOTDLGsyaGJDNGBl+gbwoKPfiqe3v2WDdEFYrX7aid1uW/n2rVjTI695xK6C0m9QZSdci7WBx1VanvD/+E+aOig3SNYF3hJLcRjy8Nk29prkyk7Jn3ZK6irvwTA1zSOhhcsLl
X-Received: by 10.50.66.163 with SMTP id g3mr1026643igt.20.1378284652434; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 01:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.76.138 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 01:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <10526_1378283356_5226EF5C_10526_843_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C511C52CE60@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <20130819135219.8236.40060.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr1VpJne1h-Q5xbNMYRhpr_n0Wmn6UqfeG3vEg2MY6ms1g@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF033638D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0pqeO9KdcKFWVqWP_5pmZ6fgQ5h4tQ=vOO57d-dg5+DA@mail.gmail.com> <10526_1378283356_5226EF5C_10526_843_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C511C52CE60@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:50:32 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3SddZio-vHGHK=5smb94HP58cY05_TGgWQpkS3=Ay8_w@mail.gmail.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
To: david.binet@orange.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdca31c1bd74204e58ae769"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 08:25:44 -0700
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, 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, 04 Sep 2013 08:50:55 -0000

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM, <david.binet@orange.com> wrote:

> **
>
> 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.
>
> Ok. So maybe you can put in the draft that this profile is a profile
supported by several operators, but not necessarily endorsed by the IETF?

>  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.
>
> Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them
are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the
IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The considerations
that the IETF deals with are primarily technical, and "we want this stuff
from our vendors" is not a technical issue.

>   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.
>
> And how is it that you as an operator need all devices to meet requirement
#28 (a cellphone MUST also be a CPE router)? How can you say that it's
necessary to facilitate deployment?

> 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.
>
> Remember, the IETF is supposed to be about rough consensus and running
code. Can we wait until there is at least one implementation that does all
this before we publish the document?