Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Mon, 19 November 2012 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F224421F8616 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:36:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vf5qX5IAYzqf for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:36:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B36121F84E6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:36:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so3985115lah.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:36:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ul2edwAmMTlyJwHljwkPtTTdTkfqLFHXA5i8HEN3VW0=; b=nAEoepuJkcIk0da5Q6wU3cDId1m313w6AmCXWD5HOi47BTjPWeOl5ZEFIMBdWkb04A Tngmzo5wucmHzo567PFLu/Dg5YMlTqiFxPWnm0YbykAy6nMCwYbWrNPkkFt9aWiObeoF YvkmQZ184Vovvh27sfN5QPpKlJGt25/qPwUxTtmafpwscKmC6QNYQNyGgR3gxq5Cj7Ow vI9SBFNM/ziYVGmmnx6NhOM7B9qf09FFS6b2aoyYShxkwKwqxKhRQXBy2pCe6lgB74Zy rJDqXcLJaT4+mAYoWZGK/DSlljasM9bk2o6rYBz/KILFYIxy4a2KF4sSYn3A0H+Mz8JP YSAw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.104.107 with SMTP id gd11mr11603622lab.25.1353335806345; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.167 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.167 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:36:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr205BrFYDRz5DqYaGJvFVhTm-YNWQPbuSD0t3rKN=wj+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E947B1328@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0PcobuWwu+Dp36NHaFRyinD1SRV0WPk792h9EwwsuFmQ@mail.gmail.com> <17547_1353319026_50AA0272_17547_9460_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C3EF5B56F7B@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr205BrFYDRz5DqYaGJvFVhTm-YNWQPbuSD0t3rKN=wj+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:36:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRszd7yuBJ+o_jt-Vc4uQeirYe95ybfDmj+C6TDF+yWoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04088d11ffc0d704ceda0b52
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:36:49 -0000

Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 19, 2012 2:03 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:57 PM, <david.binet@orange.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And I do not understand the comment about the need to remove some
requirements and to provide a link to RFC3316bis document. I do not
understand why a RFCbis draft was proposed if the specifications were
already present in draft-binet-* document.
>
> Because that draft properly updates RFC3316. This document does not
update RFC3316, it's something completely different.
>>>
>>> Second, most of this document attempts to standardize feature sets, not
protocols or interoperability. I'm not sure this is is in scope for the
IETF, and even more so for an operations group inside the IETF.
>>> [[david]] It is your opinion but as operator, it is something which is
very important and there is a lack in standardisation documents where some
IPv6 profile is defined. We receive a lot of support about
such specifications.
>
> Does the IETF define an IPv4 profile? If not, why not?
>

Why no ipv4 profile?   Because ipv4 network behavior is emergent behavior
not an engineered behavior.

The definition of "working" on ipv4 is that it does not break something
that already works.... so working is defined by baggage. Given that the
only fully deployed ipv6 3gpp network is very unique and only one data
point,  it is not sufficient to create a repeatable model.

The goal of this doc, like 6204, is to do some more consensus based
engineering to better bootstrap our ipv6 deployments.

CB
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>