Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-03.txt

From: "cb.list6" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 07:04:38 -0700

On Apr 30, 2013 9:48 PM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> I object to the text "List in one single document all requirements a
mobile device is to comply with to connect to an IPv6 or dual-stack mobile
network."
>
> There are tens of millions of consumer devices out there that connect to
dual-stack mobile networks every day, and yet none of them meet all the
requirements of this document. Actually, I bet none of them even meet all
the MUSTs in the document.

Correction. There are 10s of millions of devices that connect to *a* dual
stack mobile network. There is only one that is default on, afaik. And
devices that work on that network, afaik, don't work on anyone else's
network (except iPhone ?). right ?

Everything at vzw is a one off (this is an exaggeration), and it is naive
to say what works for them works for others (they are a cdma + LTE network,
which is a rare bird globally, and not in scope for this document)

This document is not a statement of where vzw is today.  This document is a
statement of what a rough consensus  of the ietf is, and the discussion is
guided by 3gpp operators who participate in ietf.

That said, I am not strongly attached to the wording in question.

Send text.

CB

> So obviously, mobile devices don't need to comply with these requirements
"to connect to an IPv6 or dual-stack mobile network".
>
> Please remove the text or reword it to reflect reality.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:58 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
>>  This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the
IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for
3GPP Mobile Devices
>>         Author(s)       : David Binet
>>                           Mohamed Boucadair
>>                           Ales Vizdal
>>                           Cameron Byrne
>>                           Gang Chen
>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-03.txt
>>         Pages           : 17
>>         Date            : 2013-04-29
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    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 network and IEEE 802.11 network).
>>
>>    This document defines a different profile than the one for general
>>    connection to IPv6 cellular networks defined in
>>    [I-D.ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis].  In particular, this document identifies
>>    also features to deliver IPv4 connectivity service over an IPv6-only
>>    transport.
>>
>>    Both hosts and devices with capability to share their WAN (Wide Area
>>    Network) connectivity are in scope.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-03
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-03
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 00:07:41 +0900

> network (except iPhone ?). right ?
Fair point. But this document is not about interoperability. It's a
document that mostly says "device manufacturers, you must implement all
these technologies in order to connect".

>  Everything at vzw is a one off (this is an exaggeration), and it is
> naive to say what works for them works for others (they are a cdma + LTE
> network, which is a rare bird globally, and not in scope for this document)
>
Actually, from an IPv6 perspective (which is really all this document
should cover, because the other stuff is in the realm of 3GPP), the basic
setup is pretty standard - IPV4V6 PDP type, DNS via PCO, and that's it.
Basically requirements 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 32. The other 29 (!!!)
requirements in this document are not implemented because they are not
needed.

And that's the point. We must not make the statement that all these things
are requirements, because if by some unlucky chance the community believes
that statement, then we will never see deployment of IPv6 in mobile
networks - people will just look at all the list of requirements and give
up without even trying.

You know as well as I do that supporting one IPV6 PDP type and 464xlat is
sufficient to start a mobile deployment. Then why does this document have
35 requirements?

> This document is not a statement of where vzw is today.  This document is
> a statement of what a rough consensus  of the ietf is, and the discussion
> is guided by 3gpp operators who participate in ietf.
>
None of which operators have networks that require - or even support - all
the requirements in this specification. Only a slim few of which operators
have an IPv6-capable network at all. And that's the point. The operator who
deployed IPv6 did so without needing all this stuff. And I can guarantee
that any operator who waits for all this stuff to be implemented will not
deploy IPv6 in any reasonable timeframe.

>  That said, I am not strongly attached to the wording in question.
"List all the technologies that the v6ops working group thinks might be
useful in a mobile device, including technologies still at the draft stage."

... because at the end of the day that's what this document contains.
Except for a very small number, the requirements in this doc aren't
required to connect or deploy (and Verizon Wireless's network is an
existence proof of that). Since they're not required, we can't call them
requirements. And if they're not requirements, then what are they?
Nice-to-haves? Suggestions? We can say they're the technologies we'd like
to see deployed in mobile networks, but that doesn't really have much value
from a technical perspective...

An alternative is "List the technologies that if implemented in a mobile
device is likely to provide the greatest IPv6 functionality in the largest
number of current and future deployment scenarios".

This is an improvement on the current text insofar as it does not contain a
false statement ("Lists [...] all requirements a mobile device is to comply
with to connect").

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 08:33:22 +0200

Lorenzo,

Since you think the wording is confusing, what about making this change:

OLD:
List in one single document all requirements ...

NEW:
List in one single document a comprehensive list of requirements ...

Better?

Cheers,
Med

De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Lorenzo Colitti
Envoyé : mercredi 1 mai 2013 06:46
À : [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked] WG; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-03.txt

I object to the text "List in one single document all requirements a mobile device is to comply with to connect to an IPv6 or dual-stack mobile network."

There are tens of millions of consumer devices out there that connect to dual-stack mobile networks every day, and yet none of them meet all the requirements of this document. Actually, I bet none of them even meet all the MUSTs in the document.

So obviously, mobile devices don't need to comply with these requirements "to connect to an IPv6 or dual-stack mobile network".

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:58 PM, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices
        Author(s)       : David Binet
                          Mohamed Boucadair
                          Ales Vizdal
                          Cameron Byrne
                          Gang Chen
        Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-03.txt
        Pages           : 17
        Date            : 2013-04-29

Abstract:

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:44:53 +0900

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> OLD:
>
> List in one single document all requirements …****
>
> ** **
>
> NEW:****
>
> List in one single document a comprehensive list of requirements …
>

That doesn't fix the problem.

The problem I have with this sentence is not with the word "all". The
problem is that the rest of the sentence says "requirements a mobile device
is to comply with to connect".

That wording implies that mobile devices must comply with these
requirements to connect. But that's not true, because only a very small
number of the requirements in this doc (maybe 5 out of the 35 that you
currently have) are actually required to connect.