Re-,
I really don't see how you can have a phone that "make a phone that works
perfectly well on an IPv6-only" if you don't support IPv6/IPv4v6 PDP context,
you don't have a means to make work broken applications when IPv6-only is
enabled, if the phone does not follow the procedure for requesting the PDP
context, how you can be compatible with DNSSEC, etc.
If what you mean by "perfect" is a degraded level of service, then you are
right.
I update the text to reflect this:
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. The support of the full set of features may
not be required in some contexts (e.g. dual-stack). The support
of a subset of the features included in this profile may lead to
degraded level of service (e.g., IPv6-only mode).
This document uses the normative keywords defined in the previous
section only for precision.
Is this better?
Cheers,
Med
De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com]
Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2013 09:21
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 Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM,
<mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com<mailto:mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
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.
I disagree. By my reading, you can make a phone that works perfectly well on an
IPv6-only carrier network without implementing #2, #3, #9, #10, #11, #12, #14,
$15, #16, #17, #18*, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #26, #33, and #36. Some of those
are MUSTs in this document.
If you want to do IPv6-only on wifi you need either #9 and #10 (or both plus
#11 as well), and either #20 or #21 (or both plus #23). But the other ones are
not necessary to deploy an IPv6-only phone. One of your co-authors will be able
to confirm this: I'm told there are multiple IPv6-only phones on T-Mobile USA
today, and I'm sure none of them implement all the requirements in this
document (or even all the MUSTs).
[*] How did #18 even make it in? What use is a MAY in a requirements document?
Of course implementors MAY do anything they want, unless they SHOULD NOT or
MUST NOT.