Subject: Re: Final call for consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 14:29:54 -0700

I agree with Alan and Stefan:  against allocation. 

Alan DeKok said:

> In summary: against allocation.

I agree.

Stefan Winter said;

"In summary: against allocation.

    In detail: My reservations against doing the WiFi Interworking are
    the same as in the meeting (i.e. why is "WiMAX Wifi" different from
    normal WiFi, which has a NAS-Port-Type already), but I don't care
    too much.

    For the other types, my feeling is much stronger against allocation.
    As per Avi's mail, there are

    - voice service

    - DHCP service

    - location based service

    The word "service" in these is a brightly blinking indicator that
    this is not about a port type, but a service type. So allocating a
    NAS-*Port*-Type here just doesn't seem to fit semantically.

    There is also "WiMAX Pre-Release 8 ..." stuff. This would at best be
    a temporary thing; when Release 8 is out, this NAS-Port-Type would
    just be a burnt integer. I don't think that's right. 

    Leave alone that there are values which are a "function" - what
    would that have to do with NAS-Port-Type? 

    Given that all these values are to be registered as a block, and the
    majority of the proposed values have a big question mark for me, I
    can't help but say No.

    Greetings,

    Stefan Winter"