Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  In case you missed the latest version (see the diff:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-15&url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-16),
> we addressed the changes YOU asked for and also those from James and
> Barbara (many thanks to them).
>
>
>
> What additional changes you would like to see added?
>

I don't think minor changes to the document would cause me to support it.

I have expressed my concerns about this document in the past. For example,
I think the document is too broad (in fact, harmfully broad); places too
much focus on what features to support and not enough focus on why; reads
like a procurement spec and not a technical document. Pretty much what I
said already at IETF last call -
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81663.html - and what
I have been saying since we started discussing this document.

The good news for this document is that it does not need my support to
advance - one objection is not sufficient. IIRC the chairs/ADs have stated
that they want to see "clear consensus" to support it, and if I were the
only one objecting, then I suppose that would be clear consensus. After
all, clear consensus does not mean unanimity.

My observation of this thread, however, is that it's not just me objecting.
Most clearly, Brian wrote that this reads like a procurement spec and not
an IETF document. Gert wrote that he doesn't see a need for this document.
James said he shares my general objections. And so on. You can't address
that sort of objection with minor edits. And there doesn't seem to be lots
of support for this document, either. I see one statement of support from
someone who is not an author, and very little else from the rest of the WG.