Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-reqs-rfc3316update
From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
To: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:19:30 +1000
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>

>
>On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>> => But they're not the only way to support IPv6-only. There are many
>> different variations therefore SHOULD/MUST is way too strong. Please
>>check
>> the definitions of should and must.
>
>This response seems to be based on the assumption that many different
>device implementors will make many different choices, and that operators
>will therefore have to support every possible set of choices that may
>have been made when implementing each specific device.   This is the
>exact opposite of what a requirements document like this one is supposed
>to achieve.   The point of these requirements is to create a reasonable
>baseline set of expectations that operators can have about devices that
>will connect to their networks.

=> And has there been on consensus on that mechanism? Because if there is
consensus on one approach then lets remove a few more requirements. The
current draft seems to select two approaches from what I remember.

>If, as a device implementor, you don't want to have to implement the
>recommended functionality, that's fine, but then you can't claim to
>support the requirements in the document.
>
>Of course, a SHOULD requirement doesn't prevent you from claiming you
>support the document, unfortunately.   But at least is gives you a strong
>hint that the functionality is desirable, and its absence will mean that
>your device may not provide a good feature set on some operator networks.

=> Of course, but some IETF consensus needs to be established before
selecting a couple of mechanisms and saying that's it!
Speaking of which, I'm assuming the IPv6 WG is going to review this draft
as well. 

Hesham

>