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

Dave Michaud <> Thu, 19 February 2015 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121E11A9047 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:11:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 99uYGIdpuUTn for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::729]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 057701A6F2A for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 05:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:10:34 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0087.013; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:10:34 +0000
From: Dave Michaud <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:10:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA706@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E07EE2@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E088AE@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <26150_1424277597_54E4C05D_26150_800_1_A729C0B3952BEE45A1AA136ADD556BE80493F147@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <fdc7ab8c-4f63-43eb-a77b-4764f24d9486@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR0401MB1069;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR0401MB1069;
x-forefront-prvs: 0492FD61DD
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(24454002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(15975445007)(101416001)(92566002)(106356001)(102836002)(46102003)(16236675004)(87936001)(68736005)(19580395003)(230783001)(2656002)(97736003)(86362001)(74826001)(93886004)(19580405001)(64706001)(110136001)(66066001)(19617315012)(122556002)(40100003)(1720100001)(50986999)(76176999)(99286002)(54356999)(83506001)(19273905006)(62966003)(77156002)(2900100001)(2950100001)(105586002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR0401MB1069;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D10B47D61A74Edavemichaudrcirogerscom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Feb 2015 13:10:33.8420 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0ab4cbbf-4bc7-4826-b52c-a14fed5286b9
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0401MB1069
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "IPv6 Ops WG \(\)" <>
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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:11:00 -0000

Does the charter specifically exclude hosts requirements?

Enabling dual-stack on a cellular network serves no mean if it can't be used.

Transitionning to IPv6-only requires further support from the host side to form a complete solution.

The documents published under v6ops should "serve as useful guides to network
operators and users on possible ways how to deploy IPv6 within their
existing IPv4 networks, as well as in new network installations."

This is exactly what this is. As a LAN administrator, it wouldn't cross my mind to look for an RFC for host requirements because I would have little control anyway. As a cellular operator, the hosts are part of my network and I do have a say on how they operate and it forms part of the overall solution (bullet 4 of the charter). Same would apply from a Cable MSO where the CPEs are integral part of the network.

Dave Michaud
Sr. Architect Mobility - Access Networks & IP Network Services
Network Technology | Rogers Communications<> | tel: +1 647.747.9442 | mobile: +1 416.219.5531

From: Lorenzo Colitti <<>>
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 07:45
To: Dave Michaud <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, BINET IMT/OLN <<>>, IPv6 WG <<>>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Dave Michaud <<>> wrote:
This is directly in line with the v6ops charter:

The IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops) develops guidelines for the
operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides operational
guidance on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks,
as well as into new network installations.

The main focus of the v6ops WG is to look at the immediate
deployment issues; more advanced stages of deployment and transition
are a lower priority.

Actually, it isn't, really. The charter is operational guidance for the IPv4/IPv6 Internet. Not host requirements.

In fact, if you look at the numbered list in the charter, the items are "identify operational issues and determine solutions", "identify potential security risks", "identify portions of the specs that can cause operational concerns", and "analyze solutions for deploying IPv6 within network environments". None of those cover this document.

This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at<>

Ce message est confidentiel. Notre transmission et réception de courriels se fait strictement suivant les modalités énoncées dans l'avis publié à <>