Hi Lorenzo
Answers below
David
________________________________
De : v6ops-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:v6ops-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] De la part de Lorenzo Colitti
Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2013 10:04
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org WG; IETF Discussion
Objet : 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
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM,
<mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com<mailto:mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
it is about ** a ** profile for mobile devices.
But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this
particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended
profile? If, so then the document should state why. If not, then the document
should state that this is just one possible profile, and that the IETF does not
recommend for or against it.
[[david]] It is a profile proposed by several operators and supported by other
ones. Maybe you have some other proposition for mobile profile but as
operators, this list of requirements fits our needs.
I think the fundamental problem with this document is that it does not provide
solid reasons for why all 34 requirements need to be implemented (and
personally, I think that's because it just can't - there *are* no solid
reasons).
[[david]] Did you mention that not all requirements are mandatory ? It gives
flexibility to operators to define what they are expecting from vendors.
The draft seems implies that all these requirements must be met to deploy IPv6
on mobile devices, but that's not true. A great example is the statement in the
abstract which says that this document "lists the set of features a 3GPP mobile
device is to be compliant with to connect to an IPv6-only or dual-stack
wireless network". This statement is false: there are tens of millions of
mobile devices using IPv6 every day, and none of them meet more than a minority
of the requirements in this document.
[[david]] Do you mean that the current status regarding IPv6 support in devices
is fine and that there is no need for other features in mobile devices ? Some
devices have been connected to IP networks for tens of years now and it does
not mean we should not add new features to these devices to enable new
services. We are considering, as operators, that current IPv6 features in
mobile devices do not satisfy all our needs as mentioned in the document.
I know we've already gone over this in the WG, but since this is IETF last
call, I think the rest of the community should see this discussion so that we
collectively know what the arguments for and against this proposal and can
reach informed consensus.
[[david]] OK
Oh, and I know it's a bit out of fashion, but: what happened to "running code"?
Are there *any* implementations of all this?
[[david]] We expect some implementations and we are thinking that such kind of
document may be useful to get some.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.