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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

Ok, and to continue the analogy, the proposed solution to convince Big
Pharma to do what the GPs need is to get a medical standards organization
(not even a GP consortium!) to publish an informational document says "this
document is not a standard, and compliance with this document is not
required, but if you haven't yet stopped reading, here's a profile 30
features long that you might want to implement if you feel like it". I
don't see how that will help at all.

The way I see it, the only important issues here are a) absent strong
operator requirements, device manufacturers do not always implement IPv6 in
all products on all regions, and b) iOS does not implement 464xlat.

If you want to effect meaningful change, I'd suggest focusing on those
issues instead.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Ross Chandler <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On 14 Feb 2015, at 01:31, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Heatley, Nick <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Lorenzo, I feel you are like the specialist surgeon berating the GPs for
>> not knowing every RFC in its pure form.
>>
>
> No, I am berating the authors of this draft for writing a document that
> makes GPs (=device manufacturers, other network operators) believe that
> they have to prepare loads of unnecessary medical machinery (=the many
> recommendations that this draft makes) before they can open a small GP
> surgery (=deploy IPv6), without bothering to tell them why they need all
> that machinery and what they’re supposed to do with it.
>
>
> In this particular analogy I classify the device manufacturers as members
> of Big Pharma, not as GPs.  The small country GPs are faced with buying
> equipment/features (dual-stack vaccination) to compensate for deficiencies
> between network+devices they get from their vendors. Until some paying
> customer demand arises that gets the GP’s Bank Manager interested in
> helping to push through the development to production services the GP has
> little incentive to try to move forward (got a works order for that? no
> didn’t think so) unless he also happens to be an  IPv6 “ultra-geek”.
>
> A lot of specific input has been taken on board. The list of
> recommendations has been paired right back and they are in order of
> priority and there are explanations in the document.
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
>
>
>