|
I agree with Alan and Stefan: against allocation. Alan DeKok said: > In summary: against allocation. I agree. 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. Greetings, Stefan Winter" |