I agree with Alan and Stefan: against allocation. |
Alan DeKok said:
> In summary: against allocation.
Stefan Winter said;
"In summary: against allocation.
In detail: My reservations against doing the WiFi Interworking are the same as in the meeting (i.e. why is "WiMAX Wifi" different from normal WiFi, which has a NAS-Port-Type already), but I don't care too much.
For the other types, my feeling is much stronger against allocation. As per Avi's mail, there are
- voice service
- DHCP service
- location based service
The word "service" in these is a brightly blinking indicator that this is not about a port type, but a service type. So allocating a NAS-*Port*-Type here just doesn't seem to fit semantically.
There is also "WiMAX Pre-Release 8 ..." stuff. This would at best be a temporary thing; when Release 8 is out, this NAS-Port-Type would just be a burnt integer. I don't think that's right.
Leave alone that there are values which are a "function" - what would that have to do with NAS-Port-Type?
Given that all these values are to be registered as a block, and the majority of the proposed values have a big question mark for me, I can't help but say No.