Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Sep 11, 2013, at 02:40 , Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > On 9/9/13, 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. > > Please define what is the IETF scope? IMHO, IETF is scoped to do with > I

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On 9/11/13 9:39 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, joel jaeggli > wrote: > > The queue for dicussion of this point is closed. If there needs to be an > appeal on this point now or in the future, then I'll be happy to help > someone w

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > The queue for dicussion of this point is closed. If there needs to be an > appeal on this point now or in the future, then I'll be happy to help > someone write it, but I consider that dicussion settled for the purposes > of a draft that has

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On 9/11/13 2:40 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > On 9/9/13, 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. > > Please define what is the IETF scope? IMHO, IETF is scoped to do with > IPv6 devices re

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On 9/9/13, 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. Please define what is the IETF scope? IMHO, IETF is scoped to do with IPv6 devices requirements and implementations. Do you think there is a R

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

@ietf.org WG; Dave Cridland; IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: > (Internet Protocol Version 6 > (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC > > I have to agree with Lorenzo here again. > > This document seems to me to be: > > 1.

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] > Envoyé : lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : Dave Cridland; v6...@ietf.org WG; BINET David IMT/OLN; IETF Discussion > Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: > (Internet Protocol Version 6 > (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mo

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

> > From: Owen DeLong >To: Vízdal Aleš >Cc: "v6...@ietf.org WG" ; IETF Discussion ; >Dave Cridland >Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2013 7:04 AM >Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call:     >    (InternetProtocol >Ver

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

gt;> *Cc :* Dave Cridland; v6...@ietf.org <mailto:v6...@ietf.org> WG; BINET >> David IMT/OLN; IETF Discussion >> *Objet :* Re: [v6ops] Last Call: >> (Internet Protocol >> Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC >> >> On M

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:12 PM, wrote: > *[Med] No. no, no the document indicates the language for each feature: > there are MUST, SHOULD, etc. This is not the first time a document makes > such classification of the features.* > Sorry - what I meant is: "most of the text in the document says th

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

(IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> wrote: 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/IP

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, wrote: > 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 need to support IPV4V6 if all you need to do is work on an IPv6-only network. That might

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

amed IMT/OLN Cc : Dave Cridland; v6...@ietf.org WG; BINET David IMT/OLN; IETF Discussion Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM, mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> wrote: I have con

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, wrote: > How can we ensure every implementers will agree with this list? For > instance we have two detailed technical reviewers Are reviews still appropriate? I think there are a lot of things left to say about this document beyond the high-order points we're d

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM, 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.

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

zo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2013 08:49 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : Dave Cridland; v6...@ietf.org WG; BINET David IMT/OLN; IETF Discussion Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational R

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, 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** > ** >

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, wrote: > Having consent form all vendors is valuable but I'm afraid this is not the > goal of this document. > If not "all vendors", then what about "some vendors"? Is it a goal of this document to have consensus from some implementors? Or is consensus from imple

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Hi Joel, Please see inline. Cheers, Med >-Message d'origine- >De : joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] >Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2013 06:42 >À : Lorenzo Colitti; BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN >Cc : v6...@ietf.org WG; IETF Discussion; BINET David IMT/OLN >Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call:

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On 9/9/13 4:24 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, > wrote: > > The document explicitly says “This document is not a standard.” > since version -00. > > __ __ > > What additional statement you would like to see added?

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

It has been pointed out to me that I went overboard in my response to you. I will state what was obvious to me as I wrote my response, but may not have been obvious to other readers: I am not the responsible AD for v6ops. My response was that of a participant in v6ops. I didn't find what yo

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Owen, do you have any technical objection to raise about this document, or are you just replying because you like the sound the keys make as you type? The working group adopted the document, so it's too late to object that the working group shouldn't be working on it. You can object by pointin

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

(IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> wrote: The document explicitly says "This document is not a standard." since version -00. What additional statement you would like to see added?

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, 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 mo

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; v6...@ietf.org WG; BINET David IMT/OLN; IETF Discussion Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Dave Cridland mailto:d...@cridland.net>> wrote: I'm n

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > I'm not sure the consensus requirement you're suggesting actually exists. > This is aiming at Informational, and as such: > >An "Informational" specification is published for the general >information of the Internet community, and doe

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Browsing through the document I am not sure how much weight is carries when an IETF working group defines what 3GPP networks should be doing, particularly when talking about protocols the 3GPP has not really expressed an opinion about. From the document it is unclear to me what requirements ar

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > 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

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Hi Ray, Please see inline. Cheers, Med >-Message d'origine- >De : v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de >Ray Hunter >Envoyé : vendredi 6 septembre 2013 16:33 >À : Gert Doering >Cc : v6...@ietf.org WG; IETF Discussion >Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: 04.txt>

Re: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >>> 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

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

At 02:43 04-09-2013, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: [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,

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

(IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun Date: 26.08.2013 As per the IESG request for review dated 19.08.2013 I support the draft, thanks, below are my comments, Overall> The draft is about 3GPP Mobile Devi

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Hi, On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > 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 considerati

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2013 11:25 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : BINET David IMT/OLN; v6...@ietf.org WG; IETF Discussion Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Re-, See inline. Cheers, Med De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2013 10:51 À : BINET David IMT/OLN Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; v6...@ietf.org WG; IETF Discussion Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

[mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Lorenzo Colitti Envoyé : mardi 20 août 2013 11:39 À : IETF Discussion Cc : v6...@ietf.org WG Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM, The IESG

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM, 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 IET

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM, wrote: > ** > > But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this > particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended > profile? If, so then the document should state why. If not, then the > document should state th

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM, wrote: > it is about ** a ** profile for mobile devices. > But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended profile? If, so then the document should state why. If n

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM, mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> wrote: it is about ** a ** profile for mobile devices. But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publ

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

Hi Erik, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med >-Message d'origine- >De : v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de >Erik Kline >Envoyé : jeudi 22 août 2013 13:22 >À : Owen DeLong >Cc : v6...@ietf.org; IETF Discussion >Objet : Re: [v6ops] L

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

REQ 1: 6434 5.9.1 is already a MUST. This does not need to be repeated. 6434 5.8 is already a MUST. Unless you want to make multipart ICMP a MUST (why?) as well, this too can be removed. REQ 6: re 6434 12.2, this MUST does not appear to be stronger than 12.2's MUST frankly even 5

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

I also agree with James and Lorenzo. Owen On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:58 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Aug 20, 2013, at 02:39 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: >> >> [...] It seems to me that the sheer length of the list, and the fact that is >> not prioritized, create a real risk that implementors will s

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Aug 20, 2013, at 02:39 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > [...] It seems to me that the sheer length of the list, and the fact that is > not prioritized, create a real risk that implementors will simply write it > off as wishful thinking or even shy away in terror. [...] My views on the technical

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM, The IESG wrote: >This document specifies 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 netw