Subject: RE: [Seamoby] proposal on next steps in paging

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:06:44 -0800

I thought that James addressed this issue already. Please point to
the statement in the assessment draft that you object to. I believe
that James already made it clear that although a single person
reviewed both drafts, they were reviewed independently, and both had
ties to specific external protocols, which the review committee found
innapropriate.

So could you please qualify your objection?

PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:13 AM
To: Marco Liebsch
Cc: Seamoby
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] proposal on next steps in paging

Hi Marco,
  There is a very important issue with the way paging protocol
assessment was concluded, i.e. one of the candidate proposals was not
eliminated in a way which is not acceptable. As I said in one of my
previous emails, the assessment result is moot.
  I do not we can proceed without this issue being resolved
satisfactorily.

  Regards,

Marco Liebsch wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> in order to proceed with DMHA protocol specification, I propose the
> following:
> Since the current base-line document is maybe a bit overloaded for 
> being the first Seamoby WG draft, I will take out the Mobile IPv6 
> specific options out of the main part, but keep the generic
> explicit  signaling in the document. Mobile IPv6 specific
> optimization could be  kept in the documents annex or in a separate
> document (what do you  think?). Furthermore, my opinion is that the
> concept should allow  deployment of several paging strategies, as
> currently described in the  draft. But maybe it is reasonable to
> extract the sections on paging  strategies out of the current draft
> keeping them in a separate 
> document, which could be further evaluated and extended. This would
>  allow to get a first framework draft, which is clearly arranged
> and  open for further specification of open issues. What about the 
> following: Coming up with a first famework draft end of January, 
> possibly having some further ideas and issues already addressed by 
> then. Then we have about one month in order to prepare a second 
> version ready for submission right in time for IETF#53.
>
> First issues to be addressed with respect to the base-line concept 
> should be the issues described in the assessment draft. Maybe this
> is  a good starting point for proceeding. As mentioned in Salt Lake
> already, all protocol proposals have very good ideas, which should
> be  discussed and considered to be folded into a common WG DMHA
> protocol  draft. Comments are appreciated.
>
> I am looking forward to working with you all on bringing the DMHA 
> protocol specification ahead.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marco
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

- --
Behcet

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