ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2013-09-04 10:28:31
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM, <mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)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.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>