Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

>
>On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>> And has there been on consensus on that mechanism? Because if there is
>> consensus on one approach then lets remove a few more requirements. The
>> current draft seems to select two approaches from what I remember.
>
>It would be inappropriate for the v6ops working group to pick a winner.
>We are just supposed to talk about operations.   In that context, saying
>"you probably ought to support DNS64" is meaningful advice, because a
>device that doesn't support it isn't going to be able to do DNSSEC.
>This would rule out an entire transition technology, or else rule out
>DNSSEC.
>
>The situation is similar for other recommendations this document makes.
>Can you maybe offer some motivation for your resistance to these
>requirements other than "this is too strong"?

=> My point is that we're effectively picking a winner. I didn't see any
discussion before about which mechanisms would be recommended and suddenly
we're saying CLAT is effectively a must implement in devices. The
consequences if this are grave and that's why we need to have consensus on
one or two approaches that would be recommended. If you think this WG
can't pick a winner then let BEHAVE do it with IPv6 for example. The
outcome of this draft should be a couple of mechanisms at most. So there
needs to be a discussion about what those are with 3GPP as well.

My argument doesn't boil down to "this is too strong" as you put it. It
boils down to "where is the consensus on chosen mechanisms?" where is the
discussion with other WGs and 3GPP? This needs to happen as it happened
with similar RFCs in the past like 3314, 3316 or 3574.

Hesham

>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops