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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Thu, 29 January 2015 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B701A0204 for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9dpNwG-RhoZC for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 707B01A01FA for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y20so32528902ier.1 for <>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=cQlVIpqLqIwtCH3b6X3LhEwDQIWJo3O+pf1oeFkvL/o=; b=htY9lSdUdyjWBMDk8Kh+1AGlIoLoMBOkMZmOTysFBRDC+JyP6EPRbCzO1Vyq0X+jjn nQCn9iVktUBays5DAsu/xAsiwvJAk+MfZGxXU2VmoE5KsSQFZzfJgL/CGVrrXj+vmT2e GI++O9s6DwVx+D2lECC8SkbrfbZQs7OfMivADFGhNfB8iu6njhYE3c9u5a5TqtqFJmj7 9VhLspIaSxvkgWCX61DdJmEqz0p41rDxUniMppYSGIPGh81NSjNwhxlvy33ZYu4JfFFz Rubdmy1xKEk/6NFrOdazt567qL/4vlHfAfKM+4uR1yLw/Rj00k1eqNsl/3ekDQDX64oJ +EKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=cQlVIpqLqIwtCH3b6X3LhEwDQIWJo3O+pf1oeFkvL/o=; b=nAUU/cG9GElXbD1cvgM2aJ9jpenOukKW0Up5EjOimPMG46O8QuC+w6q3Emj0zjgWtt j267P43Xz33OZiBhvMyArGOhHap7x4ncYuHQEipku/7QwmeIgC/fyV5EpM2URSrBRxki G540xSVWVwyiDUNwHkER9y4+L6ELLAY3YMXx/14j8fro/bo/aephcd12lgPfDOpRaiCl gwwNMxCXGCAd0/MO9fPs9/2iw5uxbb4JoqwklOZN3D00ODYeJ6cSAPl7K0DWUhiouQmi fsRHWnhtYsAjXwFf0ctoSRyAXV5cwO3aVkBAj6j7u42rBlc7rWCe2k4N+J1XqGA4rRg+ EWSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkisa+56R6l3ACBueIV0gr1CiC2one+cjEtLF3KX8HNYvuREOMnCCAtRoT/nJ5bFIVWQf1V
X-Received: by with SMTP id qt2mr2728436igb.1.1422532416321; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:53:16 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a2085b5a08050dc9237c
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: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:53:45 -0000

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <> wrote:

> draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile has been through Quite a bit of
> change in the IESG. The ADs would like to see the working group read it
> again and comment - working group last call - before they proceed.

Ok, off we go again then.

I have objected to this document already, and was found to be in the rough.
Therefore, I must assume that rough WG consensus is that we need a document
that looks something like this, and I will accordingly refrain from making
any general statements on the scope, utility, and general content of the
document, with which I continue to disagree.

However, I would be remiss if I did not at least draw attention to the
following factual errors and/or inappropriate statements.

1. The wording "required features to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an
IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless network" is factually incorrect. The vast
majority of these recommendations are not required to connect to such
networks, and are many are not even implemented by many popular mobile
operating systems - which manage to connect just fine. After long
discussions, that text was removed in -06. Why was it readded?

2. Previous versions of the document, including the version that passed
IETF last call, contained the text:

   This document is not a standard, and conformance with it is not
   required in order to claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6.
   The support of the full set of features may not be required in some
   deployment contexts.  The authors believe that the support of a
   subset of the features included in this protocol may lead to degraded
   level of service in some deployment contexts.

That text remains accurate and that statement is still necessary. Why was
it removed? It has been in the document since -06, and the words "this
document is not a standard" have been in this document since -01.

3. I object to the statement "One of the major hurdles encountered by
mobile operators is the availability of non-broken IPv6 implementation in
mobile devices." I submit that if it were true, then we would observe no
IPv6 deployment in mobile networks... but publicly-available data - e.g., - shows that multiple
operators have deployed IPv6 to up to 30-65% of their footprint, using the
same commercially-available devices that are used by customers of other
operators. So claiming that "broken IPv6 implementations in mobile devices"
are a major hurdle is at best incomplete and at worst incorrect.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am going yet again to say
that that operational documents should be based on operational experience.
I am not aware of any of the authors' employers having a substantial IPv6
deployment (though I would be happy to see any data that the authors could
provide to the contrary). On the other hand, the IPv6 lead on one of the
operators that *has* deployed IPv6 no longer appears in the list of authors.