IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement

"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Sun, 14 July 2002 23:04 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA20107 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:04:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA10905; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:56:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA10874 for <seamoby@ns.ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:56:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (fwuser@key1.docomolabs-usa.com [216.98.102.225]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19895 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:55:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <001c01c22b89$788b1550$056015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: john.loughney@nokia.com, seamoby@ietf.org
References: <0C1353ABB1DEB74DB067ADFF749C4EEFD38EC2@esebe004.NOE.Nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:51:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

That sounds better.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <john.loughney@nokia.com>
To: <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 3:01 PM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement


> Hi James,
> 
> > "Out of scope" is typically WG charter language. I know the 
> > SHOULD/SHOULD NOT sounds a bit funny, but I think we need to
> > express this in a way that is more requirements language.
> 
> Then how about changing:
> 
>       ... the CT solution need
>       not support it, but it should not provide a hinderance to those feature contexts
>       that do.
> 
> to:
>       ... the CT solution is not requireed to directly support synchronization, but
>       may support simple methods for the synchronization context for feature contexts
>       that do.
> 
> John
> 


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

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status