RE: 3gpp-analysis-04: Transition mechanisms at UEs; 3GPP IPv6 dep loyment (fwd)

["Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB)" <karim.el-malki@ericsson.com>]

More comments below.

 > > I can't remember seeing emails on this list saying the opposite,
 > > but if anyone has corrections to make please feel free. 
 > 
 > I've talked with a few people in Nokia and they seem to have 
 > said so.  Of
 > course, I know close to nothing of 3GPP, so they might have 
 > misunderstood
 > my questions or I might have misunderstood their answers.
 > 
 > >  > > You have left out the issue that when we're introducing a new
 > >  > > technology nowadays we don't do it all at once but gradually.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Dubious 3GPP specs (see above) are a real hindrance to 
 > >  > deployment, it 
 > >  > seems..
 > > 
 > > I'd say "interpretations" are a hindrance as with all 
 > non-IETF specs
 > > which get discussed in IETF. 
 > 
 > I agree.
 > 
 > And where do those interpretations stem from?  Lack the IETF 
 > understanding
 > non-IETF specs and the lack of non-IETF people understanding 
 > IETF specs.  
 > Let's look at the former.

Interpretations can stem from misunderstanding of the questions
or answers as you wrote above. That's often the case since that is
an important means by which knowledge is shared.

 > 
 > I don't know whether it is the responsibility of the IETF reader to
 > educate himself with non-IETF specs, or the responsibility 
 > of the people
 > discussing non-IETF specs in the IETF context to educate 
 > IETF folks.  
 > 
 > There are probably different opinions on this, but as 3GPP 
 > comes to the
 > IETF, my personal feeling is that it is the latter. (I.e. to provide
 > enough context of 3GPP so that IETF folks can make 
 > reasonable decisions.)

I agree and that's been an important part of RFC 3314 and the
scenarios draft. I think they do a good job.

 > 
 > > I think the design team has the right competence to 
 > address these issues
 > > and we didn't have major disagreement.
 > 
 > You misunderstand the role of the design team.  The design 
 > team is to 
 > address issues, yes, but all its decisions are brought to 
 > the working 
 > group, and the most importantly, all those decisions must be 
 > justified -- 
 > and the working group has to feel good with them.  There may be good 
 > reasons for decisions made in the process, but at least all 
 > of them do not 
 > appear to be apparent.
 > 
 > Design team is a brain-storming activity to cook up 
 > proposals for the WG.  
 > WG then decides what to do with those proposals based on how 
 > it feels 
 > about them.

You're jumping to conclusions here. I never said that design teams
are above the WG. The point is that you are the person raising
these objections and I was trying to find out what they are based on.
If the WG thinks that RFC 3314, analysis and scenario drafts don't provide
enough background info to support the need for tunnelling we can put in
something to explain it better. However what you were saying previously was
that you talked to some people who told you the opposite of what is written
in the draft. So it looks like the meaning and recommendation is your issue
rather than the clarity. If people disagree with what I have written on
3gpp in these emails or what is in the draft then they should bring it up
now so it can be addressed. Otherwise we can just work on the clarity
and move on.

/Karim