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

<> Thu, 19 February 2015 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E8B1A9045 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:27:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zd8_4Nlx3rQ5 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8876A1A906C for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.199]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AB5DC3B40FF; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:27:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 878A9C80AF; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:27:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) by OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:27:34 +0100
From: <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
Thread-Index: AQHQTEZgixBJZ1L350WogIuKXDMPO5z39TkQ
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:27:34 +0000
Message-ID: <9ee5ae8c-9566-4e50-afae-38e96e1247fc@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA706@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E07EE2@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E088AE@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <26150_1424277597_54E4C05D_26150_800_1_A729C0B3952BEE45A1AA136ADD556BE80493F147@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <fdc7ab8c-4f63-43eb-a77b-4764f24d9486@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490E580@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9ee5ae8c95664e50afae38e96e1247fcOPEXCLILH01corporateadr_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.19.124820
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "IPv6 Ops WG \(\)" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:27:44 -0000


Please see inline.


De : Lorenzo Colitti []
Envoyé : jeudi 19 février 2015 14:17
Cc : Dave Michaud; BINET David IMT/OLN; IPv6 Ops WG (
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:03 PM, <<>> wrote:

[Med] Hummm… I suggest you have a quick look at this page : (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?

[Med] The answer is obvious : the WG has no problem to publish such documents.

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 - .

[Med] I can inform you this will be published as RFC7445. It happens I’m co-author that document, so I’m not discovering it. Furthermore, this is cited in the mobile profile draft:

                A detailed analysis of roaming failure cases is included
                in [RFC7445].

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.

[Med] There is no recommendation in the roaming analysis draft. The profile document includes a clear recommendation on the current plan of most operators to handle the roaming issue. We don’t need hundreds of pages for that.