Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Lorenzo,

We already answered to several of the points in previous discussions (during the call for adoption and also during the WGLC). We also made some changes in the last version to make the language clear (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-05): it is about ** a ** profile for mobile devices. The scope covers mobile hosts, hosts with wan sharing capabilities (e.g., mobile CPE) and the also those with wi-fi interfaces. The motivations for this effort and scope are explained in the introduction.

Cheers,
Med


De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Lorenzo Colitti
Envoyé : mardi 20 août 2013 11:39
À : IETF Discussion
Cc : [e-mail] WG
Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM, The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
   This document specifies an IPv6 profile for 3GPP mobile devices.  It
   lists the set of features a 3GPP mobile device is to be compliant
   with to connect to an IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless network
   (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network).

I object to this document on the grounds that it is little more than a list of (34!) features with little technical justification. I see this as a problem because:

1. It is out of the IETF's mandate. It is not the IETF's job to specify which features or protocols should or should not be implemented in hosts. Even the hosts requirements RFCs are careful and sparing in their language. The IETF is certainly not in the business of rubberstamping feature wishlists without good technical reasons. I would challenge the authors to find a precedent RFC containing such broad requirements.

2. It is over-broad. The vast majority of the features are in no way necessary to build a mobile device that works well over IPv6. Today, the overwhelming majority of mobile device traffic comes from devices that implement only a handful of these requirements. More specifically, requirements #3, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27 (a whole RFC!), #28, #29, #31, #32 (which cover all applications running on the device - yes, all of them), and #34, are not necessary to connect to IPv6 mobile networks.

3. It is so daunting as to act as a deterrent to IPv6 deployment. I would challenge the authors to find a single product today that implements all, or even a substantial majority, of these requirements. It seems to me that the sheer length of the list, and the fact that is not prioritized, create a real risk that implementors will simply write it off as wishful thinking or even shy away in terror.

4. The document has few technical contributions of its own. Most of the requirements are simply listed one after another.

I'm all for IPv6 deployment in mobile networks, but making a list of what seems like all the features that the IETF has ever developed, and then saying that they all need to be implemented, is not the way to get there. The way to do it is to document use cases and working scenarios gleaned from operational experience.

Regards,
Lorenzo