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

<> Fri, 13 February 2015 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF961A870A for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:22:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8D3azr1WKJku for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE6501A8701 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7A4C72DC18A; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:22:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 564AA4C0FD; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:22:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) by OPEXCLILH04.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:22:06 +0100
From: <>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <>, Alexandru Petrescu <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
Thread-Index: AdBF852Otdv8/yjdEkq8+myPex9adwBSNY8AAB3XhwAACIyKIAAPg5rw
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:22:06 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490AE50@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.13.120922
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:22:13 -0000


FYI as part of the IESF review of this I-D, 3GPP was queried and stated that it had no interest in the document as it categorically doesn't produce documents of the kind. (I understood this from a message from F. Baker).


-----Message d'origine-----
De : v6ops [] De la part de STARK, BARBARA H
Envoyé : vendredi 13 février 2015 15:05
À : Alexandru Petrescu;
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

> When I go through procurements often the vendors ask the RFC list that
> need to be there.  This criterion - the implemented RFC list - primes over all
> others such as software management, dimensions, price tags, electrical,
> temperature and noise features.  If it were not for these little RFCs there
> would be no reasonable procurement.
> That said, I also agree with you when you imply that the list of features in this
> draft may be too long, or too hard see coherence.
> If so, then maybe we can try to reduce it a bit?
> Finally, 'profile' is probably not the right title.  It should qualify both the end-
> user device and the network device.

Inside the company I work for, I try to encourage "thoughtful" use of "device profile" RFCs such as this draft may become. That is, read through the entire RFC, and make sure you want everything that's mandated. If you don't, pick and choose what makes sense for the product you are procuring. I would definitely not recommend to anyone (inside or outside my company) that they ask for compliance with this document without fully understanding the implications of what they are asking for. Basically, I see the items listed in the draft as a set of potential items to consider when putting together an RFP.

As it relates to IPv6 "device profile" documents, I would like to mention that CableLabs has been successful with its eRouter spec, BBF successful with its TR-124, and I'm hoping CEA has impact on the CE industry with its new CEA2048 publication (which they're offering for free through Feb 28 -- see There does seem to be demand for "device profile" documents. I do think the only reason RFC 7084 (which really is a "device profile" RFC) was done in IETF was because of the need to identify requirements for CE routers that could connect to a variety of access network architecture, and IETF was "neutral territory". I admit to finding it odd that IETF would be used to publish a device profile that is only for devices connecting to 3GPP access networks. But I'm not familiar with how 3GPP works, so maybe it wasn't possible to get 3GPP to be willing to create a profile for devices that attach to their access

BTW, I'm very concerned about the fact that someone affiliated with a provider of an OS found on many  3GPP devices has so many objections to this particular "device profile". Knowing that, I would very, very strongly recommend to people I work with that they be very, very careful about how they use this particular "device profile" (if at all). I would not suggest including it directly in any RFP.

v6ops mailing list