More comments needed! [WG Last Call: 3GPP Analysis Document]

[<juha.wiljakka@nokia.com>]

 Hi all!

The wglc for 3GPP Analysis
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-06.txt
ended on Oct 14th. Quite many comments were given, and these 
were the main "open issues" before starting the wglc:
- tunneling in the UE (what is the exact recommendation)
- what is the exact recommendation on NAT-PT or other generic 
  translation mechanisms (well, I think this is quite much solved, and
  we can refer to NAT-PT applicability doc that will be published soon)
- need to discourage IPv6-only UE deployment until the transition
  has progressed further
- listing BGP/IGP based tunnels as a solution alternative in the 
  3GPP operator's network; or do we leave all such details to 
  ISP document?
- closer details for IMS scenario 1 solution; to be specified elsewhere 
  (Sipping wg)?

The comments included:
- Alain Durand's (high level) comments -> some edits will be done based 
  on those comments
- Based on Jasminko Mulahusic's comments, especially text in 3.2.2 
   was modified
- Jasminko M. also recommended going forward with this document
- quite many operator comments from Andreas Schmid; lengthy discussion
  in which Pekka S. and others were also involved.

=> So, what to do next?

It is inevitable that a new revision is needed (deadline before Minneapolis is Oct 27th,
so basically one week time for that). But before that, I would like to know what the chairs
are thinking about the situation. 

I would also like to get more wg comments, at least comments like:

 A) I support moving forward with this document (and I have these comments...), or
 B) I don't support moving forward with this doucment, because...

Many thanks,
	         -Juha W.-