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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F3331A9046 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:17:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rgtrowHuoU1a for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FDF51A904D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h15so43840477igd.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:17:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=eRrOgG1Xe7C2CMzQGBMBcpKmVmiySJUhKqV1pS+JJuM=; b=QZN+9z5erbKb4HBZkdpBDbuTI7O8hpLGCAZIW22O3Hc9u2nHq4uK1ZAELzRGuI3rRt w9TMimCpXf9qKUc+GpPNAAcIKQw6Nan2GBlD4+0TtueUzt155KMdBS/JMb7oqJEe8xUe VZiqJVvyYItHndvvPNnx9PVM7stlZD7PC48lGWunES43ysdIii/KcEGyzZ6tva4y+dvc 2+3iI6JNZ6uqhMoeOJR1W8JJZRx2tmqkn6SQRh/brMbpApLEbpyJob6CUNxKUy2HDouU uJc216jEA7F6Kwib74xfdi8ZPfOta6dcaq6/EFRPubiC9gzd9xDvIZ525mlwP47TPSOw Xi1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=eRrOgG1Xe7C2CMzQGBMBcpKmVmiySJUhKqV1pS+JJuM=; b=IxGqcBMV64LcjQ74jvQsDsCU10nnF/emAvJ/3ZQy2SgviAhEB9jVSL8spYBwyj3JM1 ULjUW1HggHbRnOpg+ez2cpbNagdjNEVvsEyFvufAI1Y0K3GVDNFqgmuozI/EGWO36CVS i18+qH40nHpbHDba+Rfq6e8jDGpQ/GMR2rNk2P8jhTffGiBmqqRmj7wEalnt2Kdl9quH Mq/2q6tHcRl8kXPgPAKnj6cwvrmnv2ulvxu/lRjuJ4/sxBm45tTcNMJUWxJ14CqsQBel a3hmNvfYyz9YBaooxNNnhaXKvB8AXkb6v2dPyi6/3taLWtkim8y+bYYeaD32IcZycb8I Cqhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6rmnXuxVzmBuWxUUH6jt1fdg8cQfM1vJndatN/zubzJMjyErm6aJsilT0dVTrlD3tK2Pt
X-Received: by 10.107.151.80 with SMTP id z77mr5959813iod.51.1424351855521; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:17:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.33.104 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:17:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490E580@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr2yDnwPDHgsq3Wi3UOzKY7KrqSpBMbBttJ5qAAu6ijOAw@mail.gmail.com> <54DDF02C.8020903@gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F231B4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA706@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <CAKD1Yr0j23E-UMdL2Ujv5nrpbbUa9rgPE_6AhbHLn0JeOZ9Edg@mail.gmail.com> <355A1FFC-9F92-4D61-985D-4C5FC6EC69EC@eircom.net> <CAKD1Yr2PX81czTwUZzaMtgPc9vhvP=oL++UZByGzxmkq_B=DMA@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E07EE2@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <CAKD1Yr0Zkic6-ydV-u==xjDGdY9GYWb8KwciBPnfk8zO=6FFqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0qS-Vg-XB7mNWwephkkL5rCG+NJO7uDJg_4W3LT+Q9Ew@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E088AE@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <CAKD1Yr00Ri8hQMsJcSqMAw+g_T-mU8GxG1G8rTHgo=McaKdW8Q@mail.gmail.com> <26150_1424277597_54E4C05D_26150_800_1_A729C0B3952BEE45A1AA136ADD556BE80493F147@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr2+BMSifTS3x0WD5LqKYe-Yse8CGf4Egaijp=8DVSf5UA@mail.gmail.com> <fdc7ab8c-4f63-43eb-a77b-4764f24d9486@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D10B3F46.1A731%dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com> <CAKD1Yr0zig7DY6npfe6JiKjmhojxTohV2==+C26zLVAU5CMo3w@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490E580@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:17:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1ZEfocFOL8dRhqOL388R0x7-3iQGiZ_hARoZn94qdRtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f5ee626a39050f70c213
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/7wkNkOMPj2oaSP8XksOMB_ELcOI>
Cc: "IPv6 Ops WG \(v6ops@ietf.org\)" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:17:38 -0000

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:03 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

>
> [Med] Hummm… I suggest you have a quick look at this page :
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/documents/ (hint: search for ‘host’
> or ‘CPE’).
>

The search says that a single-digit percentage of the documents contain the
word "host" or "CPE" in the title. What point are you trying to make? That
the charter is inappropriate, because it doesn't mention hosts, but the WG
has published a few documents that talk about hosts?


>  In fact, if you look at the numbered list in the charter, the items are
> "identify operational issues and determine solutions", "identify potential
> security risks", "identify portions of the specs that can cause operational
> concerns", and "analyze solutions for deploying IPv6 within network
> environments". None of those cover this document.
>
>
>
> [Med] Is this a joke? Your assertion is erroneous. I will take one item
> randomly from the I-D to illustrate the first item in your list:
>
>
>
>    C_REC#7:  Because of potential operational deficiencies to be
>
>              experienced in some roaming situations, the cellular host
>
>              must be able to be configured with a home PDP-Context
>
>              type(s) and a roaming PDP-Context type(s).
>

That's a great example to pick, because the WG is about to produce an RFC
on precisely this topic -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis/ .

That document is a good example of what *is* in charter of the WG: an
in-depth, detailed discussion of the operational issues. 8 lines of text
saying "devices must support different PDP types for home and roaming" is
not.