Hello,
At
this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the
in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to
allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was
neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final
consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in
either direction.
Please
respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’
(indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating
allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of
whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus
poll.
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.
Greetings,
Stefan Winter
Nas-Port-Type values as follows:
TBD for WIMAX-3GPP-PRIF: WiMAX Pre-Release 8 IWK Function
TBD for WIMAX-WIFI-IWK: WiMAX WIFI Interworking
TBD for WIMAX-SFF: Signaling Forwarding Function for
LTE/3GPP2.
TBD for WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function.
TBD for WIMAX-DHCP : WIMAX DCHP service
TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based
service
TBD for WIMAX-WVS : WiMAX voice service
|