Subject: RE: [pilc] Comments on draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-10.txt

From: Nikhil Jain <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:27:55 -0700

The distinction between 2.5G and 3G is very absurd and largely marketing 
oriented. A technical draft from IETF should not use 2.5G at all. At least 
not without defining it.

At 02:12 PM 9/4/2002 -0500, Farid Khafizov wrote:

>Hi all,
>I agree with Jayshree's comments. See, for example, today's article from 
>Reuters
><http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020904/telecoms_qualcomm_1.html>http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/020904/telecoms_qualcomm_1.html 
>
>supporting the view that no geographical regions should be mentioned in 
>the text:
>
>"CDMA2000 is leading WCDMA by a substantial margin in Japan, which is 
>often described as the main battlefield between the two technologies.
>
>DoCoMo's 3G service had attracted 127,400 users as of the end of July, 
>less than one tenth of 1.64 million subscribers for rival KDDI Corp 
>(Tokyo:9433.T - News), which offers a CDMA2000-based 3G service."
>
>Regards,
>--Farid
>-----Original Message-----  From:   Bharatia, Jayshree 
>[RICH1:2H13:EXCH]  Sent:   Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:57 
>PM  To:     [email-masked]'  Subject:        [pilc] Comments on 
>draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-10.txt
>
>Hello all,
>
>I have the following editorial comments on draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-10.txt: 
>1. In the Introduction section, it is mentioned that "Radio technology for 
>both Wideband CDMA (W-CDMA) (Europe, Japan) and cdma2000 (US, South Korea) 
>is based on code division multiple access allowing for higher data rates 
>and more efficient spectrum utilization than 2G systems" In this 
>paragraph, W-CDMA and CDMA technologies are associated with different 
>countries which is misleading since one country can have both W-CDMA and 
>CDMA. Hence, my suggestion is to remove name of countries mentioned in 
>parenthesis. 2. Through out this draft there is a mention of 2.5G which 
>may be just specific to certain wireless technology and not all, e.g. CDMA 
>doesn't have 2.5G.  Instead "pre-3G" term is more appropriate. Thanks, 
>Jayshree

--
Nikhil Jain
Office Location L-503E
Phone (858) 658-4501
Fax (858) 658-1033
email: [email-masked]
email: [email-masked]

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:55:59 +0200

Nikhil Jain wrote:
> oriented. A technical draft from IETF should not use 2.5G at all. At 
> least not without defining it.

Looking at the draft again, it seems only minor editing is required to avoid 
applying the 2.5G and 3G labels to specific technologies. E.g., 3.1 could simply 
talk about "GSM enhancements", we could change wording like

led to the introduction of 2.5G (GPRS, EDGE, PDC-P) and 3G (Wideband CDMA, 
cdma2000) systems.

into (note the alphabetical order)

led to the introduction of 2.5G and 3G systems (cdma2000, GPRS, EDGE, PDC-P, 
Wideband CDMA).

I agree with Nikhil that IETF is not on the business of deciding which marketing 
labels apply to which product.  Using the well-known buzzwords 2.5G and 3G 
collectively to identify newer cellular systems with packet capabilities seems 
OK, though.

Gruesse, Carsten

_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:55:59 +0200

Gruesse, Carsten