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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Sun, 22 February 2015 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 6996E1A6EF2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:10:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 X6I3nGBU4l57 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:10:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69DCB1A6EF9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:10:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb-aye.local ([IPv6:2601:9:3402:7bb1:4a5:16f:dbc8:c25]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1MJA0LJ014727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:10:02 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <54EA1CD1.1010204@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 10:15:45 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Michaud <Dave.Michaud@rci.rogers.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <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> <D10B47D6.1A74E%dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com>
In-Reply-To: <D10B47D6.1A74E%dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DqF7fK0l8CW3wiEPbE3iq0ksRx1Lqoud0"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/E0RMvaP4EK5ZTqCbKpkOHU8M7zg>
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: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:10:11 -0000

RE: charter

put the charter discussion to bed please. we accepted this as a wg
document in 2013 with full knowledge of the contents.

On 2/19/15 5:10 AM, Dave Michaud wrote:
> Does the charter specifically exclude hosts requirements?
> 
> Enabling dual-stack on a cellular network serves no mean if it can’t be
> used.
> 
> Transitionning to IPv6-only requires further support from the host side
> to form a complete solution.
> 
> The documents published under v6ops should "serve as useful guides to
> network
> operators and users on possible ways how to deploy IPv6 within their
> existing IPv4 networks, as well as in new network installations.”
> 
> This is exactly what this is. As a LAN administrator, it wouldn’t cross
> my mind to look for an RFC for host requirements because I would have
> little control anyway. As a cellular operator, the hosts are part of my
> network and I do have a say on how they operate and it forms part of the
> overall solution (bullet 4 of the charter). Same would apply from a
> Cable MSO where the CPEs are integral part of the network.
> 
> 
> 
> *Dave Michaud*
> Sr. Architect Mobility – Access Networks & IP Network Services
> Network Technology | Rogers Communications 
> dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com <mailto:dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com> | tel:
> +1 647.747.9442 | mobile: +1 416.219.5531
> 
> 
> From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com <mailto:lorenzo@google.com>>
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 07:45
> To: Dave Michaud <dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com
> <mailto:dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com>>
> Cc: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>"
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>>,
> BINET IMT/OLN <david.binet@orange.com <mailto:david.binet@orange.com>>,
> IPv6 WG <v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call-
> "harmfully broad"?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Dave Michaud
> <Dave.Michaud@rci.rogers.com <mailto:Dave.Michaud@rci.rogers.com>> wrote:
> 
>     This is directly in line with the v6ops charter:
> 
>         The IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops) develops guidelines
>         for the
>         operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides operational
>         guidance on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks,
>         as well as into new network installations.
> 
>         The main focus of the v6ops WG is to look at the immediate
>         deployment issues; more advanced stages of deployment and transition
>         are a lower priority.
> 
> 
> Actually, it isn't, really. The charter is operational guidance for the
> IPv4/IPv6 Internet. Not host requirements.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on
> the basis of the terms set out at www.rogers.com/web/content/emailnotice
> <http://www.rogers.com/web/content/emailnotice>
> 
> 
> 
> Ce message est confidentiel. Notre transmission et réception de
> courriels se fait strictement suivant les modalités énoncées dans l’avis
> publié à www.rogers.com/aviscourriel <http://www.rogers.com/aviscourriel >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>