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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 A63881A8786 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 rwTeEJJ7frxv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D6251A8033 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h15so43952036igd.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=qLS+k0ysvi20vEg0zCsjzRDX+tIROYh0fGB3gn9IX5Y=; b=em4UYFuKCaWTNae2niBhS87uJ37Leqkk62dBXsa/rzEe9+5NAyQj7IcyE2ZyDCpbF8 VbjvGKxWMDJG4aIRE3otIpSr558z8GzDo5GAIEloTe8yFVC9NyJ8YwtRZwM11uvBmSpn GDiAQETpKknu5Xh1KHFbhdwxqePcJr1PlvLUfug+mwRLtFAv6TFkCmujnpBqFVYAyvad ASxLsSdxX/WTuAdOdcyOh9r7k8JCXPQOlekrQhXPvD4jS5ohFQBWCPwg8cL9MgeqMumx IPGr4mB1POJkbYWeFPcC+KfzZiXxv8W+zoXyJXwbc6lEjQBII30u6K2XvzNSDFHw23DU 6kWw==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=qLS+k0ysvi20vEg0zCsjzRDX+tIROYh0fGB3gn9IX5Y=; b=b4GWfxK1cbhBkEKGjCVn2IHvsVTGmr7kxb4MVG3RjBRhD3yZ6s7gD16MysD92Am6kz MLzkgf4ByYkYaHwp69HQWfiVGvbCl170g2ZLlxGzKTbNmyETto0mP0novr1hxVkt6/5F acjy+8DKV1AmzAKEIGj+DB5FPNXANFmROO2p3ZcAD5WzrQxhz94TIdrsuq+14wdtNnFN +6curFj1nns6ltZha52BNGx1lKbPVUC6RE+XMF2N9ELzygck9Qfk2lJN1VQhe96fCCRt qp1+nsrde8lVMxOQe3YXEm8D3IyLS+fEoRaWSsVZ/OZ6cyOJJ9i4ov4THEANt5o2Awg/ iUmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQklqEiq1rpyiDKDyL+weaEDAqLwFL0uVy99ct5yNsSNMzjaoMux3hRuV3zDkjQJ/6B55NQG
X-Received: by 10.107.134.103 with SMTP id i100mr6013566iod.90.1424352973710; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:36:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.33.104 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:35:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9ee5ae8c-9566-4e50-afae-38e96e1247fc@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr2yDnwPDHgsq3Wi3UOzKY7KrqSpBMbBttJ5qAAu6ijOAw@mail.gmail.com> <54DDF02C.8020903@gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F231B4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA706@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <CAKD1Yr0j23E-UMdL2Ujv5nrpbbUa9rgPE_6AhbHLn0JeOZ9Edg@mail.gmail.com> <355A1FFC-9F92-4D61-985D-4C5FC6EC69EC@eircom.net> <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> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490E580@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr1ZEfocFOL8dRhqOL388R0x7-3iQGiZ_hARoZn94qdRtw@mail.gmail.com> <9ee5ae8c-9566-4e50-afae-38e96e1247fc@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:35:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3PUVuhUGqQd-tX_TnaY34CDWWDBke495OuagYDFKqNUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ece62089f39050f7105ff
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/J1XKKqOkApYXIDKeLsSxdmW_Ulk>
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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:36:16 -0000

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:27 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

>
> [Med] Hummm… I suggest you have a quick look at this page :
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/documents/ (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.
>

Not really. If you go and read those documents, you'll see none of them is
on host requirements. And in any case, the discussion was whether this
document is "directly in line with the v6ops charter", as Dave said. Just
because the WG happens to have published a few documents that talk about
hosts doesn't mean that host requirements are directly in line with the
charter.


>   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.
>
>  That's a great example to pick, because the WG is about to produce an
> RFC on precisely this topic -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis/ .
>
>
>
> [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.
>

That's why I picked it, yes.


> 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.
>

But it's not the role of the IETF or of this working group to make
statements about operator plans. It's the IETF's role to discuss technical
standards, and this group's role to provide operational guidance.
"Operators X, Y, and Z are handling the roaming issue like this" is not
operational guidance. An in-depth discussion of the problem, such as
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis, is.