RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

I agree with Heshams, going forward with this and all
future "selections", it is better to have a clear selection 
process even before submissions. Rules should not be expanded
or contracted during the selection process.

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman (ERA) [mailto:hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 3:36 AM
To: 'James Kempf'; Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

  > That was only one consideration. Another was that it did not meet
  > the requirement of not being dependent on a specific
  > mobility protocol.
  > 

=> 'considerations' should be part of the requirements. 
Not withstanding that, to go by your comments about the 
process (being murky), I think it seems reasonable 
to reconsider the outcome. Especially since (at least 
it seems to me) that the clarifications for the basis of 
selection have significantly 'expanded' since the meeting
in SLC. 

So maybe the decision needs some revisiting, at least
for reassurances, if nothing else. 
There seems to be some concern from several people.

Hesham

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