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

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

See inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]]
Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2013 10:51
À : BINET David IMT/OLN
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [e-mail] WG; 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 Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended profile? If, so then the document should state why. If not, then the document should state that this is just one possible profile, and that the IETF does not recommend for or against it.
[[david]] It is a profile proposed by several operators and supported by other ones. Maybe you have some other proposition for mobile profile but as operators, this list of requirements fits our needs.
Ok. So maybe you can put in the draft that this profile is a profile supported by several operators, but not necessarily endorsed by the IETF?
[Med] The document followed the IETF procedures and was benefited from the inputs and review of IETF participants; and as such it is an IETF document. We included text to precise this is not a standard but an informational document. FWIW, we formally asked for guidance from the wg in Orlando (see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-v6ops-9) but no comment was made at that time.
I think the fundamental problem with this document is that it does not provide solid reasons for why all 34 requirements need to be implemented (and personally, I think that's because it just can't - there *are* no solid reasons).
[[david]] Did you mention that not all requirements are mandatory ? It gives flexibility to operators to define what they are expecting from vendors.
Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The considerations that the IETF deals with are primarily technical, and "we want this stuff from our vendors" is not a technical issue.
[Med] With all due respect, you are keeping the same argument since the initial call for adoption and you seem ignore we are not in that stage. That's not fair at all.
 Some devices have been connected to IP networks for tens of years now and it does not mean we should not add new features to these devices to enable new services. We are considering, as operators, that current IPv6 features in mobile devices do not satisfy all our needs as mentioned in the document.
And how is it that you as an operator need all devices to meet requirement #28 (a cellphone MUST also be a CPE router)? How can you say that it's necessary to facilitate deployment?
[Med] This is not for all mobile hosts but for those acting as mobile CPEs. The text is clear. There are plenty deployments relying on the mobile networks to provide broadband services. Device vendors people involved in discussion with operators in this field are quite aware of this model. You can check for instance: http://www.orange.tn/fixe-et-internet/pid382-la-flybox-orange.html
Oh, and I know it's a bit out of fashion, but: what happened to "running code"? Are there *any* implementations of all this?
[[david]] We expect some implementations and we are thinking that such kind of document may be useful to get some.
Remember, the IETF is supposed to be about rough consensus and running code. Can we wait until there is at least one implementation that does all this before we publish the document?
[Med] There is running code for several features listed in this document. Because we don't have "decent" implementations which meet the minimal set of requirements from operators, a group of these operators decided to carry on this effort to define a common profile. Saying that, it seems to me you want to impose specific rules only for this document!!