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

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 11, 2013, at 02:40 , Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 9/9/13, Owen DeLong <[e-mail]> 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?
> 

From an RFC perspective, I think a cellular device is a host and/or router
and those cover it.

The media-specific aspects of layering IPv6 onto he peculiarities and vagaries
of the underlying cellular specific technologies are, IMHO, best left to the media
adaptation efforts of the relevant media standards bodies (as was done with
ethernet, FDDI, Firewire, etc.).

>> 	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?

The draft says many things most or all of which conflict with things said elsewhere and
all of which are fronted by a strong "this is advisory only" caveat. In fact, it says far
too many things with far too little strength. The net result is that the document will,
in the long run, become a no-op at best and a quagmire of conflicting and misleading
advice at worst.

> 
>> 	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.

I don't doubt that readers can understand it. My point is that once you understand
the sum of the caveats and warnings and advisory nature of this document, the sum
of all those understandings is that you have to look for the true answer to virtually
everything contained here somewhere outside of the IETF anyway.

>> 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.

I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion.

>> 
>> 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.

If you think I am pushing to water it down, you are mistaken. I'd like to see it
pared down to a useful document and then given the force of being a standards
track document so it can actually provide something useful.


Owen