Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 02 February 2015 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 EAB551A9245 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 23:01:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 XvUZLJ0lhrKC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 23:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B5061A923C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Feb 2015 23:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.201]) by omfeda14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A52362AC21F; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:01:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.16]) by omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7E0AA384069; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:01:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.231]) by OPEXCLILH05.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.16]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 08:01:37 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Thread-Index: AQHQPKq094KoZb5URc+rHGKXMO3E0JzYzRQAgAQiipA=
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 07:01:36 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004903527@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <B7D61F30-BAC4-4BE0-A5FD-1D4BD4652E55@employees.org> <20150129201251.GD34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902668@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr2WQfbDstchk4J0hcCz2_X23nijd71QytU5RpuV=Q3Wjg@mail.gmail.com> <FFD91DE61362694C94B174BB03CFDCDD0102408FA8AC@HE113605.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <54CBB2BB.9010608@foobar.org> <20150130164126.GO34798@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20150130164126.GO34798@Space.Net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.2.63025
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yWPePYIvWC07ucJ98Y3HfdcNGgQ>
Cc: "draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
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: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:01:41 -0000

Gert,

The point about successful deployment is not a valid argument. It is about rhetoric, not technical. If we adopt that position, every RFC is useless !!

Please let me clarify the following points:

* This profile is a superset of RFC6434 and RFC7066. For example, the profile lists items to fix some problem for IPv6 deployments (e.g., roaming)
* This profile also covers IPv4 service continuity features over an IPv6 connectivity
* This profile also lists items related to devices with LAN capabilities (there are deployments relying on mobile CPEs)
* The profile includes items related to the delivery of advanced services over IPv6 (e.g., VoLTE profile).
* THE PROFILE DOES NOT REQUIRE IMPLEMENTING ALL THE FEATURES IT LISTS! 
* All these items were present in the draft when both the WG and IETF consensus were declared.

I really recommend you read Section 1.2.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] 
Envoyé : vendredi 30 janvier 2015 17:41
À : Nick Hilliard
Cc : Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; lorenzo@google.com; BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile.all@tools.ietf.org; v6ops@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:35:07PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> the WG position hasn't materially changed; the document has.

To some extent, reality has changed.  There are a number of large scale
production wireless 3G/4G deployments out there, so the claim "it cannot 
be done because handsets sucks" is most definitely no longer true.

And, as Lorenzo stated, none of these handsets (that work well in 
practice!) fulfills the shopping list in this draft...  which gives that 
the requirements are not needed for successful deployment, and *that*
makes the whole document slightly... superfluous.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279