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

[Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 > > => I just can't relate this to what's happening today.
 > > This is really speculative and I prefer to keep the
 > > draft technical and concrete. The draft doesn't mandate
 > > tunnelling but it doesn't discount it either. I don't
 > > see any good reasons for discounting it. If people think
 > > it's too complex (I don't) then they won't implement it 
 > > or deploy it. This is not our call though. This is up to vendors
 > > and operators to choose.
 > 
 > It is our business to make the best recommendations we can.  
 > Saying "do
 > whatever you want [or whatever some others seem to be 
 > doing]" or listing
 > 3-4 different options of possible ways forward is not useful 
 > advice.  

=> Of course we can improve that by listing one preferred
option for each scenario. But what you seem to be asking for
is to eliminate scenarios which others think are useful.

   We
 > should figure out which recommandations are best, and if 
 > someone chooses
 > to ignore them for whatever reason, that's not our problem.

=> We don't seem to agree on the possible communication 
scenarios. This is the problem here. I don't know why 
you didn't ask for some scenarios to be removed from the 
scenarios document if you think they are not worth solving.

Hesham