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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:03 PM, <[e-mail]> 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.