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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A481A8786 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XtE2bAyywn9p for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com (mail-ie0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D94D01A1AB6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecrd18 with SMTP id rd18so9607012iec.5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:03:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=AzUgBJwTJLmrXzYvj+xXr0Rq5QxNMO3GoGYPMkDIFsQ=; b=K/fk3IgJwhf4dDCa9xFGKeMaJn1n9NqrLiL2w9LVcE2DxnL5ZkYafuXXUEMjlGljcn EdXfWeMsoPqsz14A5OOlrhAKw5+ujM/hrtQvBspHEEaKzgaknxd8zxmXrNzTdOgJEUof VLLhLZs+jodFB8EEyyOKSUcLpJysA27fcJfdIJZF9/7XYu0LMSnI2ZGO6gZrD/9gtrYw ClwAhzigjb0G+GdxChMxeqAJmzUD/A2TcoUzLurojKGoLFjst12DOegnbHhyVKy/bJpP 2K+JdC6b/g/E9l73eVRfZmQUfGpJc0f2BRKMmEfQob1LZ9c9Zs3jXpuAluUxuj2qSW8O d8LA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=AzUgBJwTJLmrXzYvj+xXr0Rq5QxNMO3GoGYPMkDIFsQ=; b=V7qHAUXwGaMkOajg7Ohp+mBDlHo84ZBArdB7eRyDX3g1yTyfX7j/K9xkHvLW0cHCD4 lJklP2ZU3SvM0sly9l8eVVjDAF4v+E7gEcAMUj4MzgHXGX7pNP33pCSeE8KmcDf6P4CS DIkKfM10KDikbRFNndanJ4RS5hTE2KmdAYOzKLGhBUw46ikCjgYMUi8TNzXF18Qp5CRB fyNpD/cp+6v3kXyqlH7uU3NnqAN+Cbgd5F4AIUTXlDn22I4hBBrK0277c71uzBBiyNlD An/dEYOaYYY9GqS64TGTlKSQe8TmjJsFY1e9SlxuMx1tzQNAXc6+j9krGyilJkMk1tYp bvhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkO69SavyyYCCU1zMPv0/tjMXVPcVdx4eOlOKanBkn0gZCjYKcVs/hM0OBh7VAQnFm4XcmM
X-Received: by 10.107.152.211 with SMTP id a202mr6209320ioe.59.1424354589251; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:03:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.33.104 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:02:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <e81d9ae2-6b05-4880-b489-ffb116e8e11c@OPEXCLILH03.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr2yDnwPDHgsq3Wi3UOzKY7KrqSpBMbBttJ5qAAu6ijOAw@mail.gmail.com> <54DDF02C.8020903@gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E61130F231B4@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA706@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <CAKD1Yr0j23E-UMdL2Ujv5nrpbbUa9rgPE_6AhbHLn0JeOZ9Edg@mail.gmail.com> <355A1FFC-9F92-4D61-985D-4C5FC6EC69EC@eircom.net> <CAKD1Yr2PX81czTwUZzaMtgPc9vhvP=oL++UZByGzxmkq_B=DMA@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E07EE2@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <CAKD1Yr0Zkic6-ydV-u==xjDGdY9GYWb8KwciBPnfk8zO=6FFqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0qS-Vg-XB7mNWwephkkL5rCG+NJO7uDJg_4W3LT+Q9Ew@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E088AE@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <CAKD1Yr00Ri8hQMsJcSqMAw+g_T-mU8GxG1G8rTHgo=McaKdW8Q@mail.gmail.com> <26150_1424277597_54E4C05D_26150_800_1_A729C0B3952BEE45A1AA136ADD556BE80493F147@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr2+BMSifTS3x0WD5LqKYe-Yse8CGf4Egaijp=8DVSf5UA@mail.gmail.com> <fdc7ab8c-4f63-43eb-a77b-4764f24d9486@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D10B3F46.1A731%dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com> <CAKD1Yr0zig7DY6npfe6JiKjmhojxTohV2==+C26zLVAU5CMo3w@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490E580@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr1ZEfocFOL8dRhqOL388R0x7-3iQGiZ_hARoZn94qdRtw@mail.gmail.com> <9ee5ae8c-9566-4e50-afae-38e96e1247fc@OPEXCLILH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr3PUVuhUGqQd-tX_TnaY34CDWWDBke495OuagYDFKqNUw@mail.gmail.com> <e81d9ae2-6b05-4880-b489-ffb116e8e11c@OPEXCLILH03.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 23:02:48 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr27uAsXnv8Aa6+Gm1k+Q9nmCqZpxjEHmDMuchQcODd7FA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f53853cf31050f71653f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pvIq143ewmFmLspjzSrR7jT22MY>
Cc: "IPv6 Ops WG \(v6ops@ietf.org\)" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 14:03:12 -0000

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:46 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

>
> Not really. If you go and read those documents, you'll see none of them is
> on host requirements.
>
>
>
> [Med] With all due respect, this is not true. RFC7066 is an example of
> host requirements.
>

The main purpose of RFC 7066 is not to place requirements of its own, but
to clarify the requirements that are posed on hosts by the 3GPP standards.


>   And in any case, the discussion was whether this document is "directly
> in line with the v6ops charter", as Dave said. Just because the WG
> happens to have published a few documents that talk about hosts doesn't
> mean that host requirements are directly in line with the charter.
>
>
>
> [Med] What I know is that this document was adopted by the WG and passed
> the IETF LC once. The question about the charter was never raised.
>

I don't see what WG adoption and IETF LC have got do do with this
discussion. Dave said the document is "directly in line with the v6ops
charter", and I disagreed.


>   That document is a good example of what *is* in charter of the WG: an
> in-depth, detailed discussion of the operational issues. 8 lines of text
> saying "devices must support different PDP types for home and roaming" is
> not.
>
>
>
> [Med] There is no recommendation in the roaming analysis draft. The
> profile document includes a clear recommendation on the current plan of
> most operators to handle the roaming issue.
>
>
>
> But it's not the role of the IETF or of this working group to make
> statements about operator plans.
>
> [Med] Who is asking for this?! This is your assumption, at most.
>

You're the one who wrote the words "the profile document includes a clear
recommendation on the current plan of most operators". All I'm saying is
that that's not the IETF's role.