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

<> Wed, 11 February 2015 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F194C1A00F3 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:09:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 CsLPzPkC8cKG for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:09:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B96BA1A0181 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:09:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 26ACC2DC3FF; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:09:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 00BE24C07F; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:09:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) by OPEXCLILH04.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:09:43 +0100
From: <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
Thread-Index: AdBF852OT93fqpMASLCB8yKRPPF6QA==
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:09:43 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2OPEXCLILM23corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.11.95721
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
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, 11 Feb 2015 12:09:53 -0000


Can you explicit what do you meant by “harmfully broad”?
(note, the pointer you provided is not valid because several items have been removed from the draft since then.)

Which items are not technically justified?


De : Lorenzo Colitti []
Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 09:10
Cc : Heatley, Nick; Fred Baker (fred);; V6 Ops List
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, <<>> wrote:
In case you missed the latest version (see the diff:, we addressed the changes YOU asked for and also those from James and Barbara (many thanks to them).

What additional changes you would like to see added?

I don't think minor changes to the document would cause me to support it.

I have expressed my concerns about this document in the past. For example, I think the document is too broad (in fact, harmfully broad); places too much focus on what features to support and not enough focus on why; reads like a procurement spec and not a technical document. Pretty much what I said already at IETF last call - - and what I have been saying since we started discussing this document.

The good news for this document is that it does not need my support to advance - one objection is not sufficient. IIRC the chairs/ADs have stated that they want to see "clear consensus" to support it, and if I were the only one objecting, then I suppose that would be clear consensus. After all, clear consensus does not mean unanimity.

My observation of this thread, however, is that it's not just me objecting. Most clearly, Brian wrote that this reads like a procurement spec and not an IETF document. Gert wrote that he doesn't see a need for this document. James said he shares my general objections. And so on. You can't address that sort of objection with minor edits. And there doesn't seem to be lots of support for this document, either. I see one statement of support from someone who is not an author, and very little else from the rest of the WG.