Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 09 September 2013 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
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 A841621E815D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 03:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dV9CWThGm-0b for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 03:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x233.google.com (mail-oa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D4021F883D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 03:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id h1so6316706oag.10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 03:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BKyjsphzECN8rY6BweQf98qe3vaeUEkRbdeqLF7ijMs=; b=JVi+wm9qfzszgp7Jwz8+RukP0g4UyCGGEqbtepujRVYbBgh6KeG55a7oLmaaxyb2yt kEJgK2cj+jnT2tzpqVWsgNbgWGPBHdordRShqmXo/O6lyWKlLalUMY2HSc0+O2bx1FJS 7nBucc3hVQuHsBGBIb6z4gEsRGpKU54+OXIik=
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=BKyjsphzECN8rY6BweQf98qe3vaeUEkRbdeqLF7ijMs=; b=SyNlLNVPbzAPWgFhGQAXtoDJfh58pLvls2GeZVvT4+FpApVazc189SKY67OLrNaAt/ 19NXVcdl5iEq4bxokkQPMAVsOWN0Zpsxu2/fOX7K/CfQ8HpyMRZAhtA0LrsFrCFf+s9w lDSzm5+M1cmsbD9S9fQlAqv8z2frGkIBCOAosGS/JngVVhLLrbmeSHpImKz21q2aKIko SgKsAyaMBTW2mJ0AlBUaGzZi68W0SGEcYwJQvEccwkZMKsg4tdpNjKrjeKsP0cu8iMZm e61zkVkwHrXmWNGWRxrTT1eeMq7bMkOiXvfIAqLu1b0MIjdrxDj5wTpSKQLBH52kkeEQ U/ng==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQknVVAl7fm2rNyNzM3/yKRXMs19h1RJZhch5p6SCw8H19lQgzesFYuqzhIu7WgeaoJgCyvg
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.65.227 with SMTP id a3mr10700386oet.13.1378721982334; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 03:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.121.97 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 03:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0CUzSDv9H1eCUpMRUjBDS2OCkfsfE+S+3J8Z-_6=uVSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130819135219.8236.40060.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr1VpJne1h-Q5xbNMYRhpr_n0Wmn6UqfeG3vEg2MY6ms1g@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF033638D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0pqeO9KdcKFWVqWP_5pmZ6fgQ5h4tQ=vOO57d-dg5+DA@mail.gmail.com> <10526_1378283356_5226EF5C_10526_843_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C511C52CE60@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr3SddZio-vHGHK=5smb94HP58cY05_TGgWQpkS3=Ay8_w@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF033645A@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0CUzSDv9H1eCUpMRUjBDS2OCkfsfE+S+3J8Z-_6=uVSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:19:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzwYrjyobah-oPWD3vwUeUH5XZ7U=Fqof-f28tneS8jAvQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2570000604404e5f0ba16"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 04:24:32 -0700
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:20:13 -0000

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:

> I'm just saying it here so that everyone in the community can see it. If
> it's an IETF document it has to have IETF consensus, and since I feel that
> the arguments were not properly taken into account in the WG (read:
> ignored), I think it's important that the community see them before we
> publish this document.
>

I'm not sure the consensus requirement you're suggesting actually exists.
This is aiming at Informational, and as such:

   An "Informational" specification is published for the general
   information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
   Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational

[RFC 2026 §4.2.2]

But the IETF doesn't define profile documents. The IETF defines technical
> standards on the basis of rough consensus and running code. What you're
> saying is "since we don't have running code that does what we want, we're
> trying to define a profile in the hope that someone will write the code".
> That's not the way it works.
>

No, the IETF has published profile documents in a number of cases. One
could argue that RFC 1122 and RFC 1123 are both profile documents,
actually, but there are other specific examples, like the Lemonade profile,
for example.

I suspect, however, that this document is actually a standard, or intended
as one. There's discussion about conformance, about testing for
conformance, and so on, which suggests that an operator (in particular)
might treat any resultant RFC as a standard without regard for its IETF
status. That's a concern, though in practise, if this is to be a document
detailing "what operators want", I'd be happier that it's published through
the IETF as Informational than not published at all - and in any case, no
amount of pretence will alter the fact that people will treat any RFC as a
standard if it suits them anyway.

What may be more useful, though, would be to get more stakeholders involved
in a commonly agreed profile, and supercede this.

Dave.