Re: Last Call: draft-korhonen-mip6-service (Service Selection for Mobile IPv6) to Informational RFC
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last Call: draft-korhonen-mip6-service (Service Selection for Mobile IPv6) to Informational RFC
- To: IETF discussion list <ietf at ietf.org>
- Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-korhonen-mip6-service (Service Selection for Mobile IPv6) to Informational RFC
- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:21:04 +1300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ebn1/vXQN5BCu0hcMBR3J6oBKEnT1YNDiy7n+Iwfskw=; b=Hg5S5ef5S00ONigONe8HH0PVT0e80nqbKfqQJJBq/1imRDO/ZT4IbwuI3I3XFC6ANkwWtPkddDMaO/vx15IWe7lBw9Cn15NGf29gdWsd0A0RqD45KGzdAtFvuVN4v2as0/9iSLNGrLAc7ofyl5z6MGBUQI8GCUZfIV3XIx1+/8M=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=GOaWvTXzmZs1GHP/6J2EO5fEWhLMFc6gKypM4jBMrEPJ62FzG2PNiOFqbfgZvMTFfgVbJumZDoXsf+ZADQu6fl+ckJtIQ+sJf/WqavvTac5oNUFU83VWy0cSRGhHEtYoro+n1k8HmsW0RGpeMf/8KUDy1ROxc5MGKorU3+lHFGQ=
- List-help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Organization: University of Auckland
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
I noticed while reviewing this for the Gen-ART team that this
proposal specifically allows for the creation of walled gardens
in mobile service provision. That's something an IAB workshop
warned about some years ago (RFC 3002 section 4.2).
The draft makes it clear that the default service should be
generic Internet access, although it adds that
"There is no absolute requirement that this default
service be allowed to all subscribers, but it is highly
RECOMMENDED in order to avoid having normal subscribers employ
operator-specific configuration values in order to get basic
service."
Is there a deeper issue than just the technical merit of this draft?
(Gen-ART thread, also covering some detailed comments, started at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg02389.html)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.