Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

<> Wed, 04 February 2015 08:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD9F1A6FF7 for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:11:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 GKzNkqJnD33C for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:10:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A2601A6FEA for <>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:10:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C31522AC465; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:10:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9B83015805A; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:10:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) by OPEXCLILH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:10:54 +0100
From: <>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>, BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:10:54 +0000
Message-ID: <3309_1423037455_54D1D40F_3309_6880_2_5cf9a995-53cb-40ee-b1ce-4fd9ca52b55a@OPEXCLILH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <> <> <20150129201251.GD34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902668@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.4.31819
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
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: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:11:09 -0000


> > On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:21 AM, wrote:
> >
> > With all due respect, I'm afraid we are not discussing whether the document is
> needed or not but (as I see it) whether the new version does not break the WG
> consensus that was declared for the version sent to the IESG. I recall that both the
> WG and IETF consensus were declared for the version sent to the IESG.
> That's not quite the way I recall it. In the WG, consensus has always been rough. I
> sent it out when the number of people stating a dissenting position dwindled. In
> the IETF LC in September 2013, James, Lorenzo, and Owen made comments that
> caused Joel to withdraw it from the IESG. In the IETF LC in September 2014 and
> subsequent IESG discussion, comments were raised by several in the IESG and
> summarized by Brian Haberman to the effect that the document has serious
> issues.
> profile/ballot/. In this round, you have tried to address the issues raised.
[DB] Based on discussions we had regarding Brian's comments, we did not only try to address these comments. We published a new version taking into consideration these comments and the main comment about 3GPP liaison has been closed because 3GPP has no interest and does not edit such kind of document. 
> Before I bother the IESG with it a third time, I'd really like to hear a clear
> consensus, not a rough one. Where it stands right now, that's not at all obvious.
[DB] Do not you think we are in a loop regarding the process ? There were some WG and IETF consensus, then some final comments we have taken into consideration, and now a new WG last call where no technical comments are raised but only the same arguments we had during the first last call process. And I do not speak about the fact that we may not have, as operators, some legitimacy to edit such document or that some people think that IPv6 deployment is done if 3% of the world population can benefit of some IPv6 connectivity. 


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.