Hi all,
We authors agree to the changes below on -07 version.
It can be solved with an editor's note.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Thanks for the updates in the -07 version. Just a couple of
points for Russ to consider.
In addition, due to the problems caused by the existence of multiple
convergence sublayers [RFC4840], the mobile access scenarios need
solutions about how roaming will work when forced to move from one CS
to another (e.g., IPv6 CS to Ethernet CS). Note that, at this phase
this issue is the out of scope of this document.
Please add this paragraph above to the last of section 2.2.1.5.
I notice that this text has been completely removed from section 2.2.1.5.
I think that, although it's very reasonable to say that the issue is out
of scope, the deleted text was a useful warning to the reader. This is
not essential, however.
2.4. IPv6 QoS
...
It is
required to provide IP layer quality of service mapping to MAC layer
QoS types [IEEE802.16], [IEEE802.16e].
I still disagree with this - layer 3 QoS does *not* require mappings
to layer 2 QoS. It may be useful but it certainly is not required.
I'd be happy if the text said
It is
required to define IP layer quality of service mapping to MAC layer
QoS types [IEEE802.16], [IEEE802.16e].
Agreed.
Thanks,
Myung-Ki,
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
