Re,
I have considered that Lorenzo. "is not required to deploy IPv6" would be
accurate if this document is dealing only with dual-stack, but this is not true
for the IPv6-only mode. The set of SHOULD recommendations are targeting that
deployment model.
Cheers,
Med
De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com]
Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2013 08:49
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 9:16 PM,
<mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com<mailto:mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
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.
That's better, thanks. I still think it's important for the document to say
that it's not necessary to do all mountain of work to deploy IPv6, because
otherwise there's the risk that product managers/implementors will say, "Wait,
are you're saying that to deploy IPv6 we have to do all that work? We can't do
all that. Let's focus on something else instead."
How about changing "is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF
standards for IPv6" to "is not required to deploy IPv6 on other networks or to
claim conformance with IETF standards for IPv6"?