Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

it doesnt matter now. James Kempf has started a separate thread.
I guess opinions sent on that thread alone will count.

Vijay

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
> Vijay,
>   Really? Let me copy your email you sent on Jan. 14 :
> 
> > Hi Jim,
> > just one comment.
> > James Kempf wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >  Behcet,
> >> >
> >> > Up until now, the only people who have expressed
> >> > an opinion about the paging protocol decision were authors of
> >> protocols
> >> > that
> >> > were not selected. One could, quite frankly, view this as "sour
> >> grapes"
> >> > on their part for not having been selected. However,
> >>
> > People spend a lot of their time to come up with proposals.
> > and they also hope that their proposal goes somewhere in the
> > WG. and when the protocol assessment turns out to be murky
> > and they complain, I dont think it is right to call them
> > "sour grapes".
> > Vijay
> >
> Was this not Vijay Devarapalli? If  not then my apologies.
> 
> Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> 
> > Behcet,
> > You are quoting me out of context.... my comment was not about
> > the protocol assessment.
> > Vijay
> > Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >> Seamoby@ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seamoby mailing list
> > Seamoby@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> >
> 
> --
> Behcet

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby