Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Hidetoshi,

On 11/10/2011 4:41 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that the point is to give a choice to the network and user if
> mobility is needed or not. Some applications benefit from seamless
> mobility (e.g., VoIP), but others may not (e.g., Web access). The
> network and user should be able to specify the capability of mobility
> and appropriate access network for each application. In that sense,
> Dynamic MM is an interesting feature.

I pretty much agree with this; I expect that working out the
details will be pretty tedious and perhaps even contentious.


> I agree that the current 3GPP architecture is very complicated and may
> not be optimal, but I don't think it is a good idea to change it in IETF...

I agree we can't "change" 3GPP architecture in the IETF, but
we can respond to the needs which are evident from considering
the 3GPP architecture.  It seems very few believe that LTE
is really immune from further evolution and even significant
change in the future.  If IETF does NOT respond to the needs made
evident in current 3GPP specifications, we have little hope of
proper integration into their future evolved designs.

Regards,
Charlie P.