RE: [Seamoby] Moving forward with paging

[[e-mail]]

Hi Pat,
 
Sorry for my late comments, I completely forgot to reply to the mail.
 
My suggest was to be quite similar to what you proposed:  Use the Renker
draft as a starting point, nearly a sort of 'framework' to get the work
going.
 
Next, areas where the Renker document were deficient should be noted,
and areas where the other candidates were strong be noted as well.
 
From this, a conference call could be held to discuss the next steps
in paging could be held.  Most likely, the authors of the other documents
could help move the new work group document forward.
 
best regards,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pat R. Calhoun [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 01 February, 2002 20:13
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Seamoby] Moving forward with paging




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
Hash: SHA1 

All, 

As many of you know, last week we asked the WG for their comments on 
how to proceed with the paging work.  A summary of the comments that 
came in is: 

       Start from a known protocol - 5 
       Reopen selection phase - 3  
       Design team to start from scratch - 2  
       Drop the work altogether - 1  

Many did not give opinions obviously, and these numbers are not to be 
viewed as a "vote" (our AD reminds us that rough consensus is not 
voting).  But considering the 5 and 3, there is at least a preference 
for starting with a candidate, rather 
than from scratch. 

So the issue that needs to be resolved is which protocol should be 
used, since the protocol assessment wasn't conclusive, the chairs had 
picked one based on the findings of the assessment team. However, 
since an (admitedly useless) numbering rating scheme was used in the 
assessment, it was hard to really determine which protocol should be 
used. 

After discussing the matter ourselves, and with our AD, Allison, we 
decided to revise the paging assessment draft and remove the useless 
numerical ratings. This means that each draft must now be assessed 
using just technical merit. Further, a new section has been added to 
the document stating the chairs' basis (including charter 
reasons) for viewing the Renker draft as the starting point most 
likely to get us to the requirements and to a IETF-quality 
protocol... 

So we are calling a WG last call on the assessment document 
(draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-01.txt). We encourage 
folks to provide their *technical* comments on the draft should they 
believe that the findings of the assessment team are incorrect. We do 
ask the WG members to kindly refrain from posting any process related 
comments, since it detracts us from achieving our milestones. Once 
the WG last call is complete, we will collect the comments that have 
WG concensus and make any necessary changes to the draft. The WG last 
call ends February 25th. 

The end result is that the WG will get to decide which document is to 
be used as the *starting point*. 

Thanks for your patience, 

PatC & jak 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use < http://www.pgp.com> 

iQA/AwUBPFrawTN1fXKoxmisEQIaWQCfYIis0Nsd52Q0Xv7wA77/RWn4J9IAn0t2 
FoREK4Kavht9sSs7VjZIhLlV 
=EmAk 
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----