Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 04/03/2017 à 21:12, Fred Baker a écrit :
>
>> On Mar 4, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Alexandre Petrescu
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> RFC 7849 is not a product of v6ops.
>>
>> Seems so... although I remember there was some discussion here
>> about it.
>
> It was introduced in v6ops and discussed. It went through several
> revisions, including being adopted by the working group and then
> dropped due to dissent.
>
> -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
>
>
>
-
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements
> -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
>
>
>
I think the fairest thing to say is that there were three separate
> consensuses in the discussion: those that supported it (the authors,
> representing a number of 3GPP networks), those that didn't (a set of
> people who also worked in 3GPP), and those that wished we would talk
> about something else. The chairs (Joel and I) eventually suggested
> to the authors that they publish it in the Independent Stream, which
> they did.

Hi Fred,

I think that course of action looks reasonable.  I think often RFCs get
this path of independent stream.

However, I would like to raise a strong doubt about making RFC at IETF
when IETF does not want it to be an RFC.

I think it is a waste of time from both IETF process participants, and
also from operators redirecting me to that RFC while also telling me it
has little value other than simply having "IETF" and "3GPP" in its front
page.

If it is an individual ambition from authors and Sponsor, then it could
stay at Internet Draft level - experience shows now Internet Drafts live
long time even though they are 'expired'.  Or it could be published as
other means.

Alex

>
>
>