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

[Ray Hunter <[e-mail]>]

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> 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.*
>>>
>> I'm just saying it here so that everyone in the community can see it. If
>> it's an IETF document it has to have IETF consensus, and since I feel that
>> the arguments were not properly taken into account in the WG (read:
>> ignored), I think it's important that the community see them before we
>> publish this document.
>
> +1
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster

I know I'm formally a couple of days late on the WGLC (work!).

I agree with Lorenzo.

And in any case it isn't ready to ship IMHO. e.g. How can REQ#33 and
REQ#34 be enforced by a manufacturer (during compliance testing)?

-- 
Regards,
RayH