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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Barbara,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : STARK, BARBARA H [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : vendredi 30 janvier 2015 18:45
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; James Woodyatt
Cc : IPv6 Ops WG
Objet : RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

> As per RFC7084, we didn't included it because it included some IPv4
> continuity service features that are not valid for the mobile context. The
> document already mentions the following:
> 
>                 "Note, even if RFC7084 obsoletes [RFC6204], this profile
>                 does not require RFC7084 because IPv4 service continuity
>                 techniques used in mobile networks are not the same as
>                 in fixed networks."

Requiring compliance to an obsoleted RFC (6204) is...um...unusual. Especially since RFC 7084 fixed several items in 6204 that needed fixing. I, personally, would not recommend anything be compliant with RFC 6204.

Also note that DS-Lite and 6rd are "SHOULD" requirements in RFC 7084. It is totally possible for a device to be 100% compliant with RFC 7084 and not do either DS-Lite or 6rd. 

[Med] I fully agree ... but, unfortunately,  this interpretation is not shared. It seems that some think that ALL items mentioned in a document (whatever the language used for individual items) must be supported which is not true. 

Surely mobile device manufacturers are intelligent enough to recognize that there is a very good reason for them not to do DS-Lite or 6rd (because these aren't used in 3GPP networks)? It would also be possible to explicitly note that these technologies are not used or needed for connecting to 3GPP networks.

It's my understanding that when an RFC is obsoleted by another RFC, readers are supposed to consider the new RFC as a replacement for the obsoleted RFC, every time they see a reference to the obsoleted RFC. So a brand new reference to an obsoleted RFC, for me, is rather bizarre. It's boggling my mind.

[Med] I hear you. I will remove the obsolete reference + add a sentence to exclude IPv4 service continuity features mentioned in RFC7084. 

 I'm not convinced that this reference to an obsoleted RFC will be understood in the manner you intend.

[Med] I will follow your suggestion. 

Barbara