Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

<> Wed, 11 February 2015 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21D11A1A77 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:51:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lAg0NxJJ2HKj for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93E71A0406 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 11C4618C405; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:51:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A103135C0AE; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:51:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) by OPEXCLILH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:51:50 +0100
From: <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Thread-Index: AQHQRdIc94KoZb5URc+rHGKXMO3E0JzrGQ+Q
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:51:50 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908F65@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <> <> <20150129201251.GD34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902668@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DE865D@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908DF9@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908E6C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908F65OPEXCLILM23corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.11.73029
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:51:56 -0000


I hear the point from Brian. FWIW, this point is mentioned explicitly in the introduction:

   2.  Help Operators with the detailed device requirement list

       preparation (to be exchanged with device suppliers).  This is

       also a contribution to harmonize Operators' requirements towards

       device vendors.

This point was part of the draft since we submitted the first individual submission.

The document was adopted by the WG and passed both the WG and IETF LCs with that scope. I naively assumed that this point is not anymore an issue given that the draft passed major milestones (several WGLCs, IETF LC) and the IETF consensus declared for it means this is not an issue to advance the document.

BTW, any requirement document (CPE requirement RFCs, for example) can be turned into a "procurement specification". It is a matter of presentation not a question of technical foundations. We could opted for a similar format, but we decided to be direct to the point.

The draft is currently presented as a superset of existing RFCs, enriched with features required for IPv4 service continuity, LAN capabilities, etc.


De : Lorenzo Colitti []
Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 09:10
Cc : Heatley, Nick; Fred Baker (fred);; V6 Ops List
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:31 PM, <<>> wrote:
In case you missed the latest version (see the diff:, we addressed the changes YOU asked for and also those from James and Barbara (many thanks to them).

What additional changes you would like to see added?

I don't think minor changes to the document would cause me to support it.

I have expressed my concerns about this document in the past. For example, I think the document is too broad (in fact, harmfully broad); places too much focus on what features to support and not enough focus on why; reads like a procurement spec and not a technical document. Pretty much what I said already at IETF last call - - and what I have been saying since we started discussing this document.

The good news for this document is that it does not need my support to advance - one objection is not sufficient. IIRC the chairs/ADs have stated that they want to see "clear consensus" to support it, and if I were the only one objecting, then I suppose that would be clear consensus. After all, clear consensus does not mean unanimity.

My observation of this thread, however, is that it's not just me objecting. Most clearly, Brian wrote that this reads like a procurement spec and not an IETF document. Gert wrote that he doesn't see a need for this document. James said he shares my general objections. And so on. You can't address that sort of objection with minor edits. And there doesn't seem to be lots of support for this document, either. I see one statement of support from someone who is not an author, and very little else from the rest of the WG.