On 9/9/13 1:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have to agree with Lorenzo here again.
This document seems to me to be:
1.Out of scope for the IETF.
AD here... let's put this one to bed. there are existance proof(s) of
previous work in this area and others that covers similar ground.
I don't believe that this is out of scope for the WG or the IETF,
Neither did the previous AD.
So... Focus on the contents.
2.So watered down in its language as to use many words to say nearly
nothing.
3.Claims to be informational, but with so many caveats about the nature
of that
information that it's hard to imagine what meaningful information an
independent
reader could glean from the document.
Finally, given the spirited debate that has extended into this last call
(which I honestly wonder
how this ever saw last call over the sustained objections) definitely
does not appear to have
even rough consensus, nor does it appear to have running code.
Why is there such a push to do this?
Owen
On Sep 9, 2013, at 05:16 , <mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com
<mailto:mohamed(_dot_)boucadair(_at_)orange(_dot_)com>> wrote:
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
*De :* Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com
<http://google.com/>]
*Envoyé :* lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24
*À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
*Cc :* Dave Cridland; v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto: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.
*/ /*
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops