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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Wed, 11 February 2015 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4221A0064 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:10:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fk5dQHZImYUV for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:10:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 578D81A8035 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecat20 with SMTP id at20so2192465iec.12 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:10:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=NR0rrlINQ5CvqprSoEkSfofUdzvyAihRWb7UTW9mKgY=; b=QK6YeyqAx8bAQSLRn10kdaKrLVkyiqL2VTgpemGsuseSsNnwCOyQKe1LOYPM8ldNBg zmMqromlRMdbwf0Q0r9Agrmex/rBRavlKBbN9dethQ61UbDAFvRaaLTNw9ClueyiFOoj x1CPurnEBWQK1aMtQ5x9wEnADZvo8iP5TwitQbnYlZ/ZmvfigG1apUoeC/G2+lNIkYPp AwYBdKhc9zGPqiyJRPAvjh3rI6Z0eDDsiV5z+3G/wmQRLdB/FM7k8czePjWgbANOXlEZ L9xv1KGIg4KDBrmsspIyQPRLibCNnXKnHGa83XB695uLFILdvoGNGFix4/US7VwDygLR TZfA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=NR0rrlINQ5CvqprSoEkSfofUdzvyAihRWb7UTW9mKgY=; b=OD8cFfB+9kCZocetg6Mc5p5hQ1mDaZ3nDueG8fgJsWPcpvmsNesrnyvPCw/khbDPnD 0lUTVXUEc/A4TjV89xsONFLmah322uVsWjQtgYADyNZEg56bGgYNafyNJS06usMZy5kb uDDJxVH0J8n9j0VNbZ5Hqv7kQERzZEECKtRAxEJCpGCa+3mpdqE1QgfechdSObUjFyC9 Ejv9Wa2QWfhB9QC6tR6NaV8gvXmV/yHSdJ5cUv7FKpPedt4wqQgVSfUdwSBP4UZJ+k52 Jw2HYfbo4vLpMGYXhoXWIIM06lgIMCCe5tOfWwQnoPOq1WLBqe6ejDH7TzJswD44wDi5 mWgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTbigmHPLkGNtCdmL/4kv2z9YV8sJd6rno4PLk7Yj5xYvKXFVChOUUlC7HUaBMbqcmqoUK
X-Received: by with SMTP id o125mr28944748ioo.5.1423642212734; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:10:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:09:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908E6C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <> <> <20150129201251.GD34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902668@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DE865D@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908DF9@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908E6C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:09:51 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "<>" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141c21060bb6b050ecb8807
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:10:18 -0000

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, <> wrote:

>  In case you missed the latest version (see the diff:
> 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 - - 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.