RE: 3gpp-analysis-05: miscellaneous non-critical issues

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

 > >  > ==> I think this is in conflict with the text already 
 > >  > written earlier in
 > >  > this section.  I suggest:
 > >  > 
 > >  >     As a general guideline, native IPv6 communication
 > >  >     is preferred to IPv4 communication going through IPv4 NATs
 > >  >     to the same dual stack peer node.
 > >  > 
 > >  >  JW: I don't have any complaints.
 > > 
 > > This changes the meaning of the text so I don't agree.
 > > It is meant to say that using IPv6 is preferred (to IPv4
 > > through NATs), be it native connectivity or tunneled.
 > 
 > Yep, that's intentional.  However, the only change of 
 > substance here is 
 > that the "tunneled IPv6 from the UE" has been pretty much 
 > killed from the 
 > document already.
 > 
 > So, I think my text is better.  One could of course just say 
 > "As a general 
 > guideline, IPv6 communication ....", i.e., kill "native" by 
 > making it a 
 > bit more general while not pointing out the not-so-relevant details.
 > 
 >  JW: 
 >       => can we agree on Pekka's suggestion and just remove
 >       "native" from Pekka's text?

Pekka's understanding was that we killed the "tunneled IPv6 part".
I don't think that is what has been done in the document, since now it just
specifies better when tunneling may be useful. Since we do talk about
a case where tunnelling can be useful we should keep the sentence as is
so that it mentions native and tunneled. It was written on purpose not
to make it sound like it was only "native" that we were talking about
by explicitly writing native or tunneled.
/Karim