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 Sep 9, 2013, at 13:36 , Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz> wrote:

> Please see inline.
>  
> Ales
>  
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 10:07 PM
> To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org WG; Dave Cridland; IETF Discussion
> Subject: 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
>  
> I have to agree with Lorenzo here again.
>  
> This document seems to me to be:
>  
> 1.                  Out of scope for the IETF.
> [av] Strongly disagree. The IETF as the IPv6 owner is the right place to define what qualifies a device to be IPv6 compliant. (a mobile one in this case)
>  

This is intended as "informational", not a standards track document, so it does not do that.

> 2.                  So watered down in its language as to use many words to say nearly nothing.
> [av] Hints on how the text shall be changed are always welcome.

If you don't leave it watered down, it becomes a standards track document. There appears to be even greater resistance to that, so I don't see such a document as being likely to achieve any greater degree of consensus.

>  
>           3.         Claims to be informational, but with so many caveats about the nature of that
>                       information that it's hard to imagine what meaningful information an independent
>                       reader could glean from the document.
>                   [av] The reader will learn what must/should/may be implemented in a mobile device to support IPv6.

Except that this document is clearly marked as informational and not standards track and there fore the application of must/should/may to it is seemingly rather absurd.

>  
> Finally, given the spirited debate that has extended into this last call (which I honestly wonder
> how this ever saw last call over the sustained objections) definitely does not appear to have
> even rough consensus, nor does it appear to have running code.
> [av] Med has posted an answer on this one earlier in the thread.
>  

I was not entirely satisfied with his answer.

> Why is there such a push to do this?
> [av] Because the Operators are currently missing such a document, so they went to the IETF to work on one.
> As written in the document the number of well behaving IPv6 capable mobile devices is not very high at the moment.
> This initiative is intended to help the developers.

Is there any reason a cellphone shouldn't just meet the standard requirements like any other router?

Owen

>  
> Owen
>  
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 05:16 , <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Re-,
>  
> Please see inline.
>  
> Cheers,
> Med
>  
> De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com] 
> Envoyé : lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : Dave Cridland; v6ops@ietf.org WG; BINET David IMT/OLN; IETF Discussion
> 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, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> The document explicitly says “This document is not a standard.” since version -00.
>  
> What additional statement you would like to see added?
>  
> I think the high-order points are:
>  
> 1. The text "This document defines 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" should be replaced with "This document defines an IPv6 profile for 3GPP mobile devices that a number of operators believe is necessary to deploy IPv6 on an IPv6-only or dual-stack wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network)."
>  
> In place of "a number of operators believe is necessary to deploy" you could have "intend to deploy" or "require". I'd guess that as long as it's clear that the requirements don't come from the IETF but from a number of operators (not all of them, or a majority of them), it doesn't matter exactly what you say.
> [Med] I made this change:
>  
> OLD:
>  
>    This document defines 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).
>  
> New:
>  
>    This document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators
>    require in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or
>    dual-stack wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE
>    802.11 network).
> 
> 
> 
> 2. In the normative language section, I'd like to see a statement similar to what's in RFC 6092. Perhaps something like this?
> [Med] I used the same wording as in RFC6092. The change is as follows:
>  
> OLD:
>  
>    This document is not a standard.  It uses the normative keywords only
>    for precision.
>  
> NEW:
>  
>       NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with
>       it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF
>       standards for IPv6.  It uses the normative keywords defined in the
>       previous section only for precision.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops