On 9/11/13 9:39 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
mailto:joe...@bogus.com 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
On Sep 11, 2013, at 02:40 , Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 9/9/13, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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,
On 9/9/13, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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
On 9/11/13 2:40 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
On 9/9/13, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:45 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com 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
-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-
04.txt (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, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
The document
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com 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
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.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
[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: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt
(Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:57 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.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
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:27 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com 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
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.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, 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/IPv4v6 PDP
context
You don't need to support IPV4V6 if all you need to do is work on an
-profile-04.txt
(Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to
Informational RFC
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto: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 Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:12 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com 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
...@google.com http://google.com/]
*Envoyé :* lundi 9 septembre 2013 13:24
*À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
*Cc :* Dave Cridland; v6...@ietf.org mailto:v6...@ietf.org WG; BINET
David IMT/OLN; IETF Discussion
*Objet :* Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt (Internet
:
draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt(InternetProtocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP MobileDevices) toInformational RFC
snip
Why is there such a push to do this?
[av] Because the Operators are currently missing such a document, so they
went to the IETF to work on one
[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:
draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt (Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Profile
Cridland; IETF Discussion
Subject: 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
I have to agree with Lorenzo here again.
This document seems to me to be:
1
-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-
04.txt (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
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com 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:
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
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net 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
IMT/OLN; v6...@ietf.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 7:19 PM, Dave Cridland
d
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, 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?
I think the high-order points are:
1. The text This document defines an IPv6
-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.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
The document explicitly says This document is not a standard. since version
-00.
What
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
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
On 9/9/13 4:24 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
The document explicitly says “This document is not a standard.”
since version -00.
__ __
What additional statement you would
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 documents.
: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt
(Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to
Informational RFC
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
it is about ** a ** profile for mobile devices
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM, 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 publishing this
particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended
profile? If, so then the
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM, david.bi...@orange.com 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
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
[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: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt
(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 5:29 PM,
david.bi...@orange.commailto:david.bi...@orange.com wrote:
But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this
particular profile, and not any other profile
(Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to
Informational RFC
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Ok. So maybe you can put in the draft that this profile is a profile supported
by several operators
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 considerations
-profile-04.txt
(Internet Protocol Version 6 (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
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.
Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-
04.txt (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.
[Med] Because some requirements are stronger in this document than what
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
I also agree with James and Lorenzo.
Owen
On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:58 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 20, 2013, at 02:39 , Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
[...] It seems to me that the sheer length of the list, and the fact that is
not prioritized, create a real
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org 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
On Aug 20, 2013, at 02:39 , Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com 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
45 matches
Mail list logo
