Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

<> Thu, 19 February 2015 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C481A8839 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:46:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fpExiouUkvQa for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5AC1A8795 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AE28E2AC1B5; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:46:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7F891158134; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:46:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) by OPEXCLILH03.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:46:29 +0100
From: <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
Thread-Index: AQHQTEj7ixBJZ1L350WogIuKXDMPO5z3+p7w
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:46:29 +0000
Message-ID: <e81d9ae2-6b05-4880-b489-ffb116e8e11c@OPEXCLILH03.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA706@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E07EE2@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E088AE@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <26150_1424277597_54E4C05D_26150_800_1_A729C0B3952BEE45A1AA136ADD556BE80493F147@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <fdc7ab8c-4f63-43eb-a77b-4764f24d9486@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490E580@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <9ee5ae8c-9566-4e50-afae-38e96e1247fc@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e81d9ae26b054880b489ffb116e8e11cOPEXCLILH03corporateadr_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.19.124820
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "IPv6 Ops WG \(\)" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:46:38 -0000

Re- ,

Please see inline.


De : Lorenzo Colitti []
Envoyé : jeudi 19 février 2015 14:36
Cc : Dave Michaud; BINET David IMT/OLN; IPv6 Ops WG (
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:27 PM, <<>> wrote:

[Med] Hummm… I suggest you have a quick look at this page : (hint: search for ‘host’ or ‘CPE’).

The search says that a single-digit percentage of the documents contain the word "host" or "CPE" in the title. What point are you trying to make? That the charter is inappropriate, because it doesn't mention hosts, but the WG has published a few documents that talk about hosts?

[Med] The answer is obvious : the WG has no problem to publish such documents.

Not really. If you go and read those documents, you'll see none of them is on host requirements.

[Med] With all due respect, this is not true. RFC7066 is an example of host requirements.

And in any case, the discussion was whether this document is "directly in line with the v6ops charter", as Dave said. Just because the WG happens to have published a few documents that talk about hosts doesn't mean that host requirements are directly in line with the charter.

[Med] What I know is that this document was adopted by the WG and passed the IETF LC once. The question about the charter was never raised.

In fact, if you look at the numbered list in the charter, the items are "identify operational issues and determine solutions", "identify potential security risks", "identify portions of the specs that can cause operational concerns", and "analyze solutions for deploying IPv6 within network environments". None of those cover this document.
That's a great example to pick, because the WG is about to produce an RFC on precisely this topic - .

[Med] I can inform you this will be published as RFC7445. It happens I’m co-author that document, so I’m not discovering it.

That's why I picked it, yes.

That document is a good example of what *is* in charter of the WG: an in-depth, detailed discussion of the operational issues. 8 lines of text saying "devices must support different PDP types for home and roaming" is not.

[Med] There is no recommendation in the roaming analysis draft. The profile document includes a clear recommendation on the current plan of most operators to handle the roaming issue.

But it's not the role of the IETF or of this working group to make statements about operator plans.
[Med] Who is asking for this?! This is your assumption, at most.

It's the IETF's role to discuss technical standards, and this group's role to provide operational guidance. "Operators X, Y, and Z are handling the roaming issue like this" is not operational guidance. An in-depth discussion of the problem, such as draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis, is.

[Med] The profile indicate a clear recommendation to solve a problem discussed in more details in another v6ops produced document.