Re: Comments on draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-10.txt

Nikhil Jain wrote:
> 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.

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 protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/