Subject: [seamoby] Paging Next Steps

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:14:10 -0700

All,

Now that the IESG has approved the paging (aka DMHA) requirements,
we are now ready to proceed to the next phase. The milestones
state that folks should be getting ready to submit their protocol
to the WG for consideration.

Here is a proposal on how to proceed:

1. Folks submit protocols by no later than September 14th.
2. Each protocol submission must also include an accompanying
   I-D that compares the protocol against the requirements. For
   each requirement, the author must state whether the protocol
   complies to the requirements, and if so, how. Note that we aren't
   looking for a dissertation, but also not looking for empty claims.
3. Myself (or an appointed editor) will compile the list into a
   single Internet Draft, which will be used to ease comparison. This
   draft will be available on September 28th.
4. The document will be submitted to the WG, and a Last Call will be
   made to make sure that the WG agrees with the comparison. WG Last
   Call ends Oct 12th.
5. If there is a clear winner, then we begin protocol design based on
   leading protocol. Otherwise, discussions within the WG will commence
   to determine which protocol is best for our purposes. In either case,
   the WG will not rubber stamp the protocol. Input from the WG will 
   be taken to ensure that the spec can withstand a WG Last Call.

Our milestones show that we have a potential interim meeting in September.
We can use this meeting for combined CT and paging work. Given the above,
I believe that perhaps a meeting in mid October would make more sense
for paging. At that time we would be at point 5 (above), which would
really benefit from a face to face (assuming that there is no clear
leading protocol).

Thoughts?

PatC

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:09:11 -0700

On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:29:48PM +0200, Marco Liebsch wrote:
> I think having a separate I-D coming with each protocol proposal introduces a
> lot of overhead. The individual I-Ds on the protocols comformance to the
> requirements will probably lead to discussions on the mailing list anyway. So
> why not comparing the submissions directly on the list, initiated by the
> authors of the submissions sending an e-mail to the list with similar contents
> as you proposed to be in the extra I-D? 

Of course, that is one alternative. However, I have always found that
finding an internet draft is so much easier than having to plow through
archives. This is for nothing other than mere convenience.

As far as overhead, what kind of overhead are we talking about here? On
the part of the protocol submitter? The working group? In either case, the
protocol submitter has to put this list together. Adding the nroff (or pick
your favorite processor) is trivial compared to creating the protocol
specification. 

If you recall, the process I described would only leave one week to combine
all comparisons, so the easier it is on that editor, the better.

> I do not expect kind of 'ranking list'
> of protocols conformance to the requirements will help to design the seamoby
> paging protocol, but I expect to take over the best ideas and mechanism
> described in the different submissions and to merge them to a common proposal,
> which could be the basis for the seamoby protocol. What do you think?

Well, we will have to start somewhere. We can opt to start from scratch, and
pick features from individual protocol submissions, but I'm not sure that's
the quickest (and best approach). So, I suspect that if one protocol does 
seem favored by the WG, it would be the starting point. At that point, folks
may want to pull in features from other submissions.

Does that make sense?

> Having the meeting on paging in September or not should be fixed and notified
> as soon as possible in order to allow further plannings.

Of course, which is why I am initiating this discussion now.

> Do you really think
> it is good to have a combined meeting for CT and for paging? This would
> require strict plannings of an appropriate agenda. I would like to refer to
> James comment on having at least 2 -3 days in order to meet on paging.

Yes, it does make sense. This is one WG. However, we can split the work
such that the first couple of days is reserved for a particular topic (e.g. CT),
and the next couple of days for another.

As a chair, I much prefer this than to have 2 days in one location, followed
by another couple of days in another.

PatC

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:29:48 +0200

Hi all,

please see between the lines for comments.

as you proposed to be in the extra I-D? I do not expect kind of 'ranking list'

as soon as possible in order to allow further plannings. Do you really think

> PatC

Have a nice weekend.

Regards,

Marco