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 <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I have considered that Lorenzo. “is not required to deploy IPv6” would be
> accurate if this document is dealing only with dual-stack, but this is not
> true for the IPv6-only mode. The set of SHOULD recommendations are
> targeting that deployment model.
>

I disagree. By my reading, you can make a phone that works perfectly well
on an IPv6-only carrier network without implementing #2, #3, #9, #10, #11,
#12, #14, $15, #16, #17, #18*, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #26, #33, and #36.
Some of those are MUSTs in this document.

If you want to do IPv6-only on wifi you need either #9 and #10 (or both
plus #11 as well), and either #20 or #21 (or both plus #23). But the other
ones are not necessary to deploy an IPv6-only phone. One of your co-authors
will be able to confirm this: I'm told there are multiple IPv6-only phones
on T-Mobile USA today, and I'm sure none of them implement all the
requirements in this document (or even all the MUSTs).


[*] How did #18 even make it in? What use is a MAY in a requirements
document? Of course implementors MAY do anything they want, unless they
SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT.