IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 21 September 2012 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF12421F878B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93MltQxaKQGL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A55421F87AA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7BC4F3245AD; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:21:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.31]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 60ED84C06C; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:21:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.31]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:21:31 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:21:30 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
Thread-Index: Ac2WZk6bkygjt2tHRWm0TALPSDGcNgAlw55wAEGmCYAAALQnAAAJZaUA//+Moj7///+ZIA==
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5B1235B4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <CAKD1Yr1xnF_mQwy-6OAyXRxkcpoNB099tVC+J89ni6wVA+bmSw@mail.gmail.com> <CC8252D3.290D7%hesham@elevatemobile.com>, <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5B1235A3@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <316C3D1C-DC6C-422D-8105-763A936A693A@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <316C3D1C-DC6C-422D-8105-763A936A693A@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.6.19.115414
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:21:33 -0000

Dear Ted,

I fully agree with this comment. 
We need input from the WG to "tune" the requirements.

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com] 
>Envoyé : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 14:15
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : Hesham Soliman; IPv6 Ops WG
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
>
>On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:07 AM, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" 
><mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
>>> 4. for req 6 and 7. Are we sure this is a SHOULD? Are we effectively
>>> requiring these functions for all deployments? It seems like a big
>>> mandate, who's pushing for this? Just need to see that we have 
>>> consensus
>>> on this. I think Req 8 has the right keyword "MAY" and the 
>same should
>>> apply to 6 and 7 IMO.
>> 
>> Med: These are important features to support if we want 
>IPv6-only connectivity model to fly. 
>
>My general reaction to the document is that the requirements 
>are too weak and I would like to see them strengthened. I 
>think requirement 8, for example, should be a SHOULD, not a 
>MAY.  implementors can still ignore a SHOULD, but in doing so 
>they are clearly leaving out an important feature, not just 
>skipping something nobody cares very much about.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email