Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

James and Pat,

it seems like

a) pick a candidate first and then ask WG for consensus (excluding the
authors of submissions) against it
as opposed to
b) present results from assessment team and ask the WG what to do
is causing confusion and consternation. a) is seems to be especially
controversial because WG co-chairs picked a candidate superseeding (for
whatever seemingly justifiable reason(s)) the assessment process which
all submissions earnestly followed. I would have opted to do b), even
with the milestone pressure.

You might want to try
c) allow each submission to pick a candidate from the set not including
their own.
    (I don't know how to break a tie if any; others may have comments)

By having the larger, active folks involved in resolving the
"indeterminate" result from the assessment team, the process can be made
more transparent and perhaps more acceptable.

Regards,

-Rajeev

James Kempf wrote:

> Hesham,
>
> You are right. The numbering system was an experiment
> that didn't work. It was meant to help the assessment
> team, it only served to confuse the issue.
>
> I will take the actual numbers out of the draft
> and substitute a nonnumeric indication
> of the status of the draft on particular
> requirements.
>
>             jak
>
> --
> -- Original Message -----
> From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>
> To: "'Pat R. Calhoun'" <pcalhoun@bstormnetworks.com>; "'Cedric
> Westphal'" <cedric@IPRG.nokia.com>
> Cc: "'Behcet Sarikaya'" <behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>;
> <seamoby@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:20 AM
> Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description
>
> > I don't want to take sides here since I'm not following
> > the paging proposals and do not have an opinion on
> > proposal X vs proposal Y, but really why are you having a numbering
> > system if you're not going to follow it ????
> > What's the point of these numbers anyway if they are
> > (obviously) based on different criteria from those that
> > the 'winning' protocol is assessed on ?
> >
> > Seems very strange.
> >
> > Hesham
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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