Re: [Seamoby] IP Paging ]Framework discussion

Hi Behcet,

>   I had suggested a civilized phone call to resolve or at least talk
about
> the issues. Reading your mail I conclude you do not wish to talk over
these
> things, but rather resort to written communication.
>   I have no personal accusations on any body. I am a professional, I
am not
> here to deal with persons. There are technical issues, and if I have
> technical points to make, I believe I am entitled to my opinion as
someone
> who has been working on IP Paging issues for sometime probably longer
than
> many in the WG.

This is good to know. If you have technical issues, please by all means
post them.

>   It is the belief of our team that the renker draft is technically
not the
> right one as a base document. It is our belief that the base document
should
> have been dressed bottom up by getting consensus on the technical
issues
> starting with the architecture.

As I mentioned to you in previous email, the WG already has agreed
to the functional architecture, it is described in RFC 3154.
There is still a need for a network architecture, draft-renker
has a proposal that the WG will use as a start. If you have
specific technical issues with the network architecture in
draft-renker, then please post them to the list, and Marco
and the WG can begin to address them.

> Therefore it really does not matter if this
> or that draft coauthor agrees to work on a wrong document. What
matters is
> the technical issues because we are talking about a protocol, not a
> nontechnical issue.

Great!

>   We may continue to work on our two protocol and one API drafts and
if we
> somehow come up with enhanced versions we wll share with IETF by
submitting
> them as I-Ds. Therefore we are unable to participate in the process
you
> prescribed in your email and this means of course the new draft makers
> should not count on our drafts.

You are certainly free to submit your documents to the IESG as
informational
documents. I am sorry to hear that you don't want to participate
in the WG design on paging, we will certainly miss your expertise.

>   As a final remark, if one of 5 candidate proposals is eliminated by
giving
> no opinion even though some aspects of this one draft are used as
arguments
> for eliminating some other drafts, this execution of the agreed upon
> assessment process has unfortunately been buggy.
>

Well, my semantic analyzer comes up indeterminate on this statement, so
I guess
I will have to refrain from comment.

        jak

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