See inline….
-- Avi Lior --Bridgewater Systems
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.
Because the behaviour in WiMAX is different then when the AAA is performing 'normal' WiFi operations. Anyway you seem to care a lot.
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.
Service Type does not work. I wish it would. But its overloaded. For example if I want to say Authenticate-Only for Voice Service I would not be able to do so.
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.
Temporary thing hmmm. Burnt Integer — seriously.
Leave alone that there are values which are a "function" - what
would that have to do with NAS-Port-Type?
Seems to me that NAS-Port type IS the way you specify the type of service connection and hence service the request is about.
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"
|