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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Soliman Hesham wrote:
>  > > => 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.

Having one solution would be vastly preferable.  In some cases, where 
there is clear reason (and significant use for multiple ones) it might be 
possible to list some options, but I'm not sure if that has really come 
up.

I want to eliminate some scenarios because that would seem to give bad
advice to the folks reading the document.  One purpose of the documents
was to *limit* and *clarify* the transitition scenarios -- not to document
every single one of them, and everything such a model would require to
operate.

I guess it might be possible to include a paragraph like "doing FOO or BAR
is not recommended, because..." if folks think that would be a good idea.

>    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.

I think the scenarios were meant to point out the different *possible*
ways to deploy v6 in 3GPP space.  It didn't intend to include the
normative text on, "these all are scenarios required to be solved".  

One should be allowed to excercise judgment in the Analysis documents, or
consider whether a given direction already taken in the analysis document
(e.g. wider application of dual-stack than maybe anticipated when writing
the scenarios) already eliminates/mitigates the need for a solution in
each specific original scenario listed (instead of "already solved").

The bottom line is that the scenarios as a whole has to be dealt with.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings