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

Ross Chandler <> Sat, 14 February 2015 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABD81A1C04 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 04:25:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fxYK_Mt2kpIK for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 04:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id BA0D21A1C00 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 04:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 61925 messnum 6674032 invoked from network[]); 14 Feb 2015 12:25:18 -0000
Received: from ( by (qp 61925) with SMTP; 14 Feb 2015 12:25:18 -0000
Received: from [] ([]) by with Cloudmark Gateway id sCRE1p00b4BK5ly01CRJ0W; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:25:18 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_88B85873-9475-46DF-91F4-A02CED3DAD37"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:25:14 +0000
Message-Id: <>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA706@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
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: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:25:23 -0000

> On 14 Feb 2015, at 01:31, Lorenzo Colitti <> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Heatley, Nick < <>> wrote:
> Lorenzo, I feel you are like the specialist surgeon berating the GPs for not knowing every RFC in its pure form.
> No, I am berating the authors of this draft for writing a document that makes GPs (=device manufacturers, other network operators) believe that they have to prepare loads of unnecessary medical machinery (=the many recommendations that this draft makes) before they can open a small GP surgery (=deploy IPv6), without bothering to tell them why they need all that machinery and what they’re supposed to do with it.

In this particular analogy I classify the device manufacturers as members of Big Pharma, not as GPs.  The small country GPs are faced with buying equipment/features (dual-stack vaccination) to compensate for deficiencies between network+devices they get from their vendors. Until some paying customer demand arises that gets the GP’s Bank Manager interested in helping to push through the development to production services the GP has little incentive to try to move forward (got a works order for that? no didn’t think so) unless he also happens to be an  IPv6 “ultra-geek”.  

A lot of specific input has been taken on board. The list of recommendations has been paired right back and they are in order of priority and there are explanations in the document.