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

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)

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.

          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.

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.

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.

Owen

On Sep 9, 2013, at 05:16 , <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:

Re-,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo@google.com<http://google.com/>]
Envoyé : lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : Dave Cridland; v6ops@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops