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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:27 PM, <[e-mail]> 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.