Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on Paging Decision

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:42:27 -0800

Who is editor of the WG document is not what is being discussed right
now, so how about we leave that one behind. Whether or not people
understand the english language, and what is being discussed is also
out of scope.

What we are discussing here is whether we move forward with the
renker draft as a *starting point* or not. 

Allison, Jim and I are looking into the possible ways to move
forward, but as some folks have clearly expressed, none of them are
great. We know that none of the proposals fit the requirements 100%,
and restarting the assessment process is of dubious use. Another
alternative is to start from scratch, but what kind of delay does
this introduce, and how do we do this (and will we really forget what
we've learned from existing proposals)?

The three of us will be chatting in the next couple of days, and will
inform the WG of our findings.

PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Concensus Call:Reaching Closure on Paging
Decision

Dear all,
  Sorry but I do not understand neither do I agree with Marco's point
which says that the selection results are OK and so we should move
forward.
  Instead people have disagreed and voted for reselection/design
team.
  I think that some people do not read emails or misunderstand
whatever 
is written.
Unfortunately this may jeopardize the possibility of editorship of
the 
probable design team by such a person.
  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,

Marco Liebsch wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>just a comment from my side. As I read on the list several times,
>none  of the architecture and protocol proposals seem to match the 
>requirements for 100% (otherwise we would have finished the task on 
>DMHA right now:), all have really good ideas in. Why is it proposed
>to  start from scratch then or by throwing all the proposals on the
>table?  What was the purpose of the assessment and selection process
>then? As  far as I can think back, nobody complained when such a
>selection 
>process has been proposed. Did anybody expect a proposal that fits 
>100%, getting a consensus of the entire WG? Everybody followed the 
>'rule'. From September deadline to Nov., making an assesment draft 
>public, there was a lot of time in between and, as far as I can
>think  back, there was no discussion on the list providing feedback
>on the  other proposals, as requested sometimes. I did not hear any
>voice after  submission deadline describing the other protocols in a
>way not meeting  the requirements sufficiently, even not after the
>assessment draft was  available. Should this time period of
>selection be for nothing, having  as a result that none of the
>proposals meets the requirements for 100%  and to start from
>scratch? Why not taking the selected open design (and  I think our
>concept is open enough  in order to allow) and work 
>together on the WG draft?
>
>Marco
>
>--behcet
>

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:03:50 -0600

May I propose the following alternatives:
- restart the selection process which means let everybody to revise and 
resubmit independently which of course is open to the new players;
This solution brings the assessment problem, then the assessment process 
should be agreed. I would recommend getting expert opinion rather than 
the volunteers.
- A closed design team composed only of one author from each of the 5 
candidate drafts. This design team needs no design team leader.
- An open design team. Maybe someone to lead the discussions might be 
needed, in this case someone from universities or research centers would 
be appropriate.
- Completely dropping this work item, is this an option?
My 0.02 euros.

Pat R. Calhoun wrote:

>  
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

---

From: Baba S <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:21:56 -0500 (EST)

Hi Behcet,

> should be agreed. I would recommend getting expert opinion rather than 

How about assessing each other. Since we don't have
so much experts so far, I think.

> - Completely dropping this work item, is this an option?

Yes, it is, I think, and it is not bad either.
Though I like doing something instead of stopping.

Regards.

baba//

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:35:53 +0100

Behcet,

see inline

--On Monday, January 21, 2002 5:03 PM -0600 Behcet Sarikaya 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> resubmit independently which of course is open to the new players;  This
> solution brings the assessment problem, then the assessment process

I don't think the evaluator regard themself as non-experts. And as said in 
the previous mail, starting again the selection process means every body 
comes up with a similar proposal and the same problem arises again.

>- A closed design team composed only of one author from
> each of the 5 candidate drafts. This design team needs no design team
> leader.

Have you ever seen a team without a coordinator putting together text from 
various co-authors and pushing the co-authors to deliver text?

>- An open design team. Maybe someone to lead the discussions
> might be needed, in this case someone from universities or research
> centers would be appropriate.

You are right that somebody should lead the discussion, but I have not seen 
any substantial comments on the various draft and the assessment document 
before the selection. Strange that this happens after the selection.

>- Completely dropping this work item, is

I disagree dropping the item.

Marcus

>  inform the WG of our findings.

--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: [email-masked]
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:37:50 -0600

Dear all, (George, Baba, Maroc, Marcus, et al.)

    Thanks for your comments.
It seems that Pat has not offered the design team as a choice. So the 
two design team choices I gave seem to be out of question.
  In this case, what is the most widely accepted choice? In my opinion 
it WAS the reselection and NOT to  move forward.
  Move forward is only supported by draft-renker people but nobody else.
  To George's comments: my last choice was there because Yoshi talked in 
his recent mail, on the need for modifying the requirements.

  I think we should make sure clearly what was the consensus on the two 
choices given by Pat. I clearly am stating that my opinion is the 
reselection.

Regards,

--behcet

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:39:31 -0600

I am starting a new thread here.
It is not true that there are no paging experts out there who can make 
judgements on architectural and algorithmic aspects of solutions. On IP 
Paging I can mention Ramjee Ramachandran (Lucent), Claude Castelluccia 
(Inria), Andrew Campbell (Columbia).
  Layer 2 paging is an old area, there are so many academic researchers 
who wrote papers just look in any ICC, Globecom, Infocom proceedings.

Regards,

--behcet