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

["Heatley, Nick" <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo,
Focusing on a) what do you suggest?
Have you another way?

The disappointed for me in the discussion about this common reqts paper is not that there are a few strong voices rejecting this initiative.
It is that there are no voices of support. As I think you have pointed out, there is little support beyond the authors.
(Beyond that the silence is deafening.)
Nick


From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 16 February 2015 06:11
To: Ross Chandler
Cc: Heatley, Nick; IPv6 Ops WG ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

Ok, and to continue the analogy, the proposed solution to convince Big Pharma to do what the GPs need is to get a medical standards organization (not even a GP consortium!) to publish an informational document says "this document is not a standard, and compliance with this document is not required, but if you haven't yet stopped reading, here's a profile 30 features long that you might want to implement if you feel like it". I don't see how that will help at all.

The way I see it, the only important issues here are a) absent strong operator requirements, device manufacturers do not always implement IPv6 in all products on all regions, and b) iOS does not implement 464xlat.

If you want to effect meaningful change, I'd suggest focusing on those issues instead.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Ross Chandler <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On 14 Feb 2015, at 01:31, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Heatley, Nick <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Lorenzo, I feel you are like the specialist surgeon berating the GPs for not knowing every RFC in its pure form.

No, I am berating the authors of this draft for writing a document that makes GPs (=device manufacturers, other network operators) believe that they have to prepare loads of unnecessary medical machinery (=the many recommendations that this draft makes) before they can open a small GP surgery (=deploy IPv6), without bothering to tell them why they need all that machinery and what they’re supposed to do with it.

In this particular analogy I classify the device manufacturers as members of Big Pharma, not as GPs.  The small country GPs are faced with buying equipment/features (dual-stack vaccination) to compensate for deficiencies between network+devices they get from their vendors. Until some paying customer demand arises that gets the GP’s Bank Manager interested in helping to push through the development to production services the GP has little incentive to try to move forward (got a works order for that? no didn’t think so) unless he also happens to be an  IPv6 “ultra-geek”.

A lot of specific input has been taken on board. The list of recommendations has been paired right back and they are in order of priority and there are explanations in the document.


Ross







NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose.  
 
We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. 

EE Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Company Registered Number: 02382161
Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.