Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:33:22 -0800

To be honest, I don't see how this numbering scheme came into play.
It is the first time that I've ever heard of it within the IETF. If I
would have known that the evaluation team was doing this, I would
have stopped it.
 
The reason for the evaluation is to find the candidate protocol that
most closely matches the requirements, which the WG agreed upon. This
would ensure that there is less work involved in getting the protocol
up to par.
 
That was the process (and the same process has been used in many
other WGs)
 
PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:05 AM
To: Pat R. Calhoun
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

Hi Pat,
  So you are backing your cochair's decision to select the draft that
received 72 marks while all other drafts received 90 or so marks.
This means that the criteria was to select the worst draft as the WG
draft. Since this was the case of course the worst draft  people
would need other drafts in order to get something that makes sense. 
   The catch here is how to get the other draft people to agree on
this impossible task. This is the dilemma we are facing presently.
That's why the pleas are being written, and even some people are
being forced.
  My simple logic says this is impossible. If it is the WG chairship
to try to achieve the impossible, please continue to try it, you
won't get anywhere!

Regards,

Pat R. Calhoun wrote:

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

Behcet,

The process, to which I provided you a pointer a few days ago,
clearly states that folks express their opinion on the list. Jim and
I will not read other mailing list archives to determine roush
consensus. The seamoby list is the only one we can use to gauge
consensus.

Again, as Jim clearly stated, the only objection we are seeing right
now is yours (although you claim two other people did, and 3 is still
short of rough consensus for a list that has 499 members). If we
guaged there was rough consensus on this issue, then we would most
certainly act. 

Our primary concern at this time is to get the work completed and
achieve our milestones. So how about we get to work and put this
behind us.

PatC

- - -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [ mailto:[email-masked] ] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

Several people not authors of proposals (Vijay, Rene) voiced their 
concern on the murky assessment, or am I wrong, or are you waiting
for  
the sky to fall down?

To be on the positive side, we can offer Majordomo based mailing list
support for the design team, if only with no WG draft.

Take it or leave it.

James Kempf wrote:

>
>Any such decision is always subject to WG concensus. Unfortunately,
>the  only voice we are hearing on the mailing list right now is
>yours. One  voice isn't enough for concensus, nor is text from a
>private email 
>forwarded and posted apparently without the author's permission. 
>Goodness knows, we have enough vocal people on this list. It took us
>a  year to get CT requirements done (and we still don't have them in
>IESG  Last Call!) because everybody had an opinion. If I were seeing
>some of  these people, who were not authors of competing proposals
>coming 
>forward and saying that we should change the decison, it would be 
>another matter.
>
>                    jak
>

- - -- 
Behcet 

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

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <
http://www.pgp.com >

iQA/AwUBPEbuLjN1fXKoxmisEQJfYwCg+H6m+Uo6ly00ONoyYOFLLtGLGbgAoNkr
5WxMNRzg0Qv02oder+oZzLGR
=GIVv
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- -- 
Behcet

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:41:43 -0800

Pat,

> That was the process (and the same process has been used in many

It was just something I cooked up to allow the evaluation team
to quickly summarize the comparison between the different
protocols on individual requirements. It was never intended
to be used as an absolute measure of quality. I need to
put some text into the draft to this effect. 

You can rest assured, that I will *never* use something like
this again, and we should probably inform other WGs
that they shouldn't either! The danger of misinterpretation
is too great.

            jak