Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol

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

> the fact that one person who is not an author has
> stepped forward and expressed this opinion now indicates
> that at least one other member of the working group would prefer
> a different course. It does not indicate to me, by any
> stretch of the imagination,  that there is working group
> concensus for a different course.
> 
> Given this, Allison, Pat, and I will discuss the matter
> and post an email to the working group in the
> near future.
> 
>             jak
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>
> To: <seamoby@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 12:03 PM
> Subject: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol
> 
> > Hi James,
> >
> >   There has been a new development (Pls see the email that was
> forwarded
> > to you).
> >  It seems now clear that there is no longer a consensus on
> draft-renker.
> > I think that this draft can not be taken as WG document, and therefore
> > serve as base.
> >   The assessment draft drafy-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-00.txt
> > did not identify a clear winner but it seems that it has identified a
> > clear loser (the renker draft)  in terms the marks given (72 marks
> > versus 89, 90, etc).
> >
> >   Here is the way out:
> >
> > >We believe that the process of creating an IP paging protocol can be
> > >> substantially improved, and that the establishment in Seamoby of a
> > >> design team comprising the authors of the current proposal and few
> > >> other relevant parties is the only realistic solution (as it has
> > >> already happened in other IETF WGs).
> > >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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

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