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

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

> When I go through procurements often the vendors ask the RFC list that
> need to be there.  This criterion - the implemented RFC list - primes over all
> others such as software management, dimensions, price tags, electrical,
> temperature and noise features.  If it were not for these little RFCs there
> would be no reasonable procurement.
> 
> That said, I also agree with you when you imply that the list of features in this
> draft may be too long, or too hard see coherence.
> 
> If so, then maybe we can try to reduce it a bit?
> 
> Finally, 'profile' is probably not the right title.  It should qualify both the end-
> user device and the network device.

Inside the company I work for, I try to encourage "thoughtful" use of "device profile" RFCs such as this draft may become. That is, read through the entire RFC, and make sure you want everything that's mandated. If you don't, pick and choose what makes sense for the product you are procuring. I would definitely not recommend to anyone (inside or outside my company) that they ask for compliance with this document without fully understanding the implications of what they are asking for. Basically, I see the items listed in the draft as a set of potential items to consider when putting together an RFP.

As it relates to IPv6 "device profile" documents, I would like to mention that CableLabs has been successful with its eRouter spec, BBF successful with its TR-124, and I'm hoping CEA has impact on the CE industry with its new CEA2048 publication (which they're offering for free through Feb 28 -- see http://www2.ce.org/webmail/26962/296407969/c0b6a64961882e8185ea241297a29529). There does seem to be demand for "device profile" documents. I do think the only reason RFC 7084 (which really is a "device profile" RFC) was done in IETF was because of the need to identify requirements for CE routers that could connect to a variety of access network architecture, and IETF was "neutral territory". I admit to finding it odd that IETF would be used to publish a device profile that is only for devices connecting to 3GPP access networks. But I'm not familiar with how 3GPP works, so maybe it wasn't possible to get 3GPP to be willing to create a profile for devices that attach to their access network.

BTW, I'm very concerned about the fact that someone affiliated with a provider of an OS found on many  3GPP devices has so many objections to this particular "device profile". Knowing that, I would very, very strongly recommend to people I work with that they be very, very careful about how they use this particular "device profile" (if at all). I would not suggest including it directly in any RFP.