On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote:
> Ok. So maybe you can put in the draft that this profile is a profile > supported by several operators, but not necessarily endorsed by the IETF? > ** > > *[Med] The document followed the IETF procedures and was benefited from > the inputs and review of IETF participants; and as such it is an IETF > document. We included text to precise this is not a standard but an > informational document. FWIW, we formally asked for guidance from the wg in > Orlando (see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-v6ops-9) > but no comment was made at that time.* > Then state in the document that this profile is recommended by the IETF, and if you get consensus on that, great. But the document should say *something* about this. > Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them > are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the > IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The considerations > that the IETF deals with are primarily technical, and "we want this stuff > from our vendors" is not a technical issue.**** > > *[Med] With all due respect, you are keeping the same argument since the > initial call for adoption and you seem ignore we are not in that stage. > That’s not fair at all.* > I'm just saying it here so that everyone in the community can see it. If it's an IETF document it has to have IETF consensus, and since I feel that the arguments were not properly taken into account in the WG (read: ignored), I think it's important that the community see them before we publish this document. > *[Med] This is not for all mobile hosts but for those acting as mobile > CPEs. The text is clear.* > True. The document does define "cellular device" as something that's capable of sharing WAN connectivity. I don't suppose you could pick another word than "device" here? It's confusing, because "device" usually refers to any engineered object. Maybe use the word "sharing" or tethering" in the name? > *[Med] There is running code for several features listed in this > document. Because we don’t have “decent” implementations which meet the > minimal set of requirements from operators, a group of these operators > decided to carry on this effort to define a common profile. Saying that, it > seems to me you want to impose specific rules only for this document!!* > But the IETF doesn't define profile documents. The IETF defines technical standards on the basis of rough consensus and running code. What you're saying is "since we don't have running code that does what we want, we're trying to define a profile in the hope that someone will write the code". That's not the way it works.
