Subject: Re: [16ng] WGLC : draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-01

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:42:20 -0500

Daniel,

Comments inline:

>Raj, 
>
>Before jumping in the details, please let me allow to
>flash out several points among the 16ng deliverables.
>
>[1] Terms inconsistency:
>
>Among the three deliverables, I am really confusing the definition
>of each term duplicated. E.g., AR, MS, Transport Connection, etc..
>Those kinds of terms MUST be alligned in a document, then others
>will refer to that simply. I stick to the PS document to take common
>terms in the 16ng space, and each document will have its own
>specific terms only. (Remind: Junghoon and Syam)

Question: Would it be better to simply reference the PS documents
w.r.t the common terms?

I agree with you that consistency of the terms is essential. So
if we go with that approach, I see that the term MS is not in the
terminology section of the PS doc. The term SS and MS are used
interchangeably in 802.16 and WiMAX. So if we could enhance the PS
document with the description of MS that is in this document, then we
do not need to have it in this document as well.

I also do not see the term AR in the PS doc. So either we add it in
the PS doc or leave it here since it is used extensively within the
scope of this doc.

And as far as the definition of the transport connection goes, I think
the explanation in this I-D is more clear than the one in the PS
doc. Again, should I request that the PS doc revise the definition?

>
>[2] In draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-01,
>
>Section 6.1. IPv6 link in 802.16 said:
>
>"For 802.16 network, following the 3GPP precedent [RFC3314],
>point-to-point link model is recommended."
>
>I am not sure why you are not leaning to the draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6
>-link-model-analysis-00 as a reference model of IPv6 link
>at least Section 3.2. Point-to-point Link Model. My preference
>is to use the 16ng DT's deliverable as a reference of IPv6CS
>document. 

I agree with your statement. The link-model-analysis I-D is indeed the
driver for choosing the PtP link model and I will modify this
accordingly and reference it instead of RFC3314.

> 
> 
>Further details on the WGLC will be forthcoming.
>

Comments appreciated.

-Raj

>Thanks your time and considerations.
>
>Daniel 

_______________________________________________
16ng mailing list
[email-masked]
http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng

---

From: "Soohong Daniel Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:43:31 +0900

Raj,

> do not need to have it in this document as well.

That's what I pointed out, yes, PS will take these terms.

> the PS doc or leave it here since it is used extensively within the

Agreed, these kinds of terms should be in-scope of this document.

> doc. Again, should I request that the PS doc revise the definition?

Yes, I will end up to the revision following the concerned.

> accordingly and reference it instead of RFC3314.

Thanks your time and consideration.

-- 

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
_______________________________________________
16ng mailing list
[email-masked]
http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng