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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Wed, 04 September 2013 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 3D5D621E80AB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.708
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.269, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r-DZAbjZoo-r for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9E811E8192 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 02:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 16so71723iea.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 02:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
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=5uFTqPgo/occq2vGachxAh8SuyT0HDtsSSQmAy0dhwY=; b=PLrupMSbLxtjMu+rGuPWUYwZUEjNLtW+5jDxv3ftGvyxLAXsGofZbacrVRajaBPxOz JGzXVPd64WOtBSO3fwGyCkvn0YaKmgPpmIzfTRMM14SOy0g2Ijt8xucb6KO5zBBHxMJ+ zHtwm0Z+N6+Kzgh1E/ZcIiywrO25L/nHjPf/kmqba34xgqobrdj3icm+7V/j/9nUOGYG UJqx3pXiwr6Yo9lW2Y8MB4J13mEmYyJLyIIeTiYBSuT6xkJHWUZpPONPCxBdzoR4xdv9 Av1Zbef4yECPEwX3kDrHx0qpYTyNCRiKULrX6a+ZIKpfOrfOQ3wcs0deuGlFRIpHBlho boxA==
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=5uFTqPgo/occq2vGachxAh8SuyT0HDtsSSQmAy0dhwY=; b=RevBDU+6XtzXBjogocGIVpzPVP1WZ1/hrlWU/ridgHWDiH4hYE9pBntyt+x3DkaMd0 RBnH8zkyc351vANtV6DIKP1OygzNXJayOZk6ewFIFeZeuzsOiXBZDuQ4uYLim5DQSr8W 5onAECPCiS6sDjf78RBS5hO5VQN9HSLC9FSefI//zEyMTp7+o8NndpfrcWlsEHCITcOp qKr/KuM4Bc6BV2fwvrwVZ+jfg/CwH3vrwkFoZBxqGIRiBGKTacdmmAkpkr+SHuZB0xyt 9xUWsrfOcUp6Y+vT5/Ep5uuojtRnrMgrh8GDclLASEe477oycDJgexnS0UXN404He3Xo zLkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZGIUHeAWZ58FMZO1j57sJ7/rwsb1bm7pHDGgAIccNvN2gnXztvzmD9G32tZANlidtDJPXaga8B3uZm+wpI85PYEHxYVRVdZDxQNN/hrmF1QUq4bKdzDKTj9H+3JuVyK/g/QOfJBShg1/SjLHaON4Hg8ggCjaNwJReemg2ilmkxI6OVcRQki7FsHiNR0HAP64I9NjL
X-Received: by 10.50.119.42 with SMTP id kr10mr1138006igb.20.1378286737740; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 02:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.76.138 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 02:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF033645A@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <20130819135219.8236.40060.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr1VpJne1h-Q5xbNMYRhpr_n0Wmn6UqfeG3vEg2MY6ms1g@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF033638D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0pqeO9KdcKFWVqWP_5pmZ6fgQ5h4tQ=vOO57d-dg5+DA@mail.gmail.com> <10526_1378283356_5226EF5C_10526_843_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C511C52CE60@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr3SddZio-vHGHK=5smb94HP58cY05_TGgWQpkS3=Ay8_w@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EF033645A@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:25:17 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0CUzSDv9H1eCUpMRUjBDS2OCkfsfE+S+3J8Z-_6=uVSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013c64aa66f78904e58b6367"
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: 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
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:25:42 -0000

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> 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.*
>
Then state in the document that this profile is recommended by the IETF,
and if you get consensus on that, great. But the document should say
*something* about this.

> 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.

> *[Med] This is not for all mobile hosts but for those acting as mobile
> CPEs. The text is clear.*
>
True. The document does define "cellular device" as something that's
capable of sharing WAN connectivity. I don't suppose you could pick another
word than "device" here? It's confusing, because "device" usually refers to
any engineered object. Maybe use the word "sharing" or tethering" in the
name?

> *[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!!*
>
But the IETF doesn't define profile documents. The IETF defines technical
standards on the basis of rough consensus and running code. What you're
saying is "since we don't have running code that does what we want, we're
trying to define a profile in the hope that someone will write the code".
That's not the way it works.