Hi Lorenzo,
We already answered to several of the points in previous discussions (during
the call for adoption and also during the WGLC). We also made some changes in
the last version to make the language clear
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-05): it is
about ** a ** profile for mobile devices. The scope covers mobile hosts, hosts
with wan sharing capabilities (e.g., mobile CPE) and the also those with wi-fi
interfaces. The motivations for this effort and scope are explained in the
introduction.
Cheers,
Med
De : v6ops-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:v6ops-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] De la part de Lorenzo Colitti
Envoyé : mardi 20 août 2013 11:39
À : IETF Discussion
Cc : v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org WG
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 Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM, The IESG
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
wrote:
This document specifies an IPv6 profile for 3GPP mobile devices. It
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
(including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network).
I object to this document on the grounds that it is little more than a list of
(34!) features with little technical justification. I see this as a problem
because:
1. It is out of the IETF's mandate. It is not the IETF's job to specify which
features or protocols should or should not be implemented in hosts. Even the
hosts requirements RFCs are careful and sparing in their language. The IETF is
certainly not in the business of rubberstamping feature wishlists without good
technical reasons. I would challenge the authors to find a precedent RFC
containing such broad requirements.
2. It is over-broad. The vast majority of the features are in no way necessary
to build a mobile device that works well over IPv6. Today, the overwhelming
majority of mobile device traffic comes from devices that implement only a
handful of these requirements. More specifically, requirements #3, #9, #10,
#11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26,
#27 (a whole RFC!), #28, #29, #31, #32 (which cover all applications running on
the device - yes, all of them), and #34, are not necessary to connect to IPv6
mobile networks.
3. It is so daunting as to act as a deterrent to IPv6 deployment. I would
challenge the authors to find a single product today that implements all, or
even a substantial majority, of these requirements. It seems to me that the
sheer length of the list, and the fact that is not prioritized, create a real
risk that implementors will simply write it off as wishful thinking or even shy
away in terror.
4. The document has few technical contributions of its own. Most of the
requirements are simply listed one after another.
I'm all for IPv6 deployment in mobile networks, but making a list of what seems
like all the features that the IETF has ever developed, and then saying that
they all need to be implemented, is not the way to get there. The way to do it
is to document use cases and working scenarios gleaned from operational
experience.
Regards,
Lorenzo