Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com]
Envoyé : lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : Dave Cridland; v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org WG; BINET David IMT/OLN; 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 Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM,
<mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com<mailto:mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
The document explicitly says "This document is not a standard." since version
-00.
What additional statement you would like to see added?
I think the high-order points are:
1. The text "This document defines 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" should be replaced with
"This document defines an IPv6 profile for 3GPP mobile devices that a number of
operators believe is necessary to deploy IPv6 on an IPv6-only or dual-stack
wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE 802.11 network)."
In place of "a number of operators believe is necessary to deploy" you could
have "intend to deploy" or "require". I'd guess that as long as it's clear that
the requirements don't come from the IETF but from a number of operators (not
all of them, or a majority of them), it doesn't matter exactly what you say.
[Med] I made this change:
OLD:
This document defines 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).
New:
This document defines an IPv6 profile that a number of operators
require in order to connect 3GPP mobile devices to an IPv6-only or
dual-stack wireless network (including 3GPP cellular network and IEEE
802.11 network).
2. In the normative language section, I'd like to see a statement similar to
what's in RFC 6092. Perhaps something like this?
[Med] I used the same wording as in RFC6092. The change is as follows:
OLD:
This document is not a standard. It uses the normative keywords only
for precision.
NEW:
NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with
it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF
standards for IPv6. It uses the normative keywords defined in the
previous section only for precision.