On 9/9/13 4:24 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
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.
So this is a problem, and part of the reason I had enough concern about
this document to not take it forward. being genereous the consensus on
this document is pretty rough. if the outcome doesn't include the
consent of implementors it's not very good advice.
2. In the normative language section, I'd like to see a statement
similar to what's in RFC 6092. Perhaps something like this?
1.3. Use of Normative Keywords
NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard. Conformance with it is
not required to deploy IPv6 in mobile networks or to claim conformance
with IETFstandards for IPv6. It uses the normative keywords
defined in the
previous section only for precision.
Regards,
Lorenzo