Re: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call

> >From what I remember Gary said that he supports the removal of 3 out
of the
> 4 points....so the 2 opinions against the removal do not constitute
what I
> would call....WG consensus do they? In fact only Madjid said that "we
could
> re-word but not remove"...who was the 2nd person against removal?
>
> Maybe you should ask "who cares?"
>

Alright, but this is *the very last time*. We do really need to get this
document on the way.
This is a concensus call. Is there any opposition to removing the
following requirements
from draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-02.txt:

4.12 The context information to be transferred MUST be available at the
AR
performing the transfer, prior to the initiation of a given phase of the
context transfer.
4.13 The context transfer solution WILL NOT verify the context
information
prior to transfer.
4.15 The context transfer solution MAY include methods for interworking
with
non-IETF mobility solutions.
5.5.2 A context update MUST preserve the integrity, and thus the
meaning, of
the context at each receiving AR.

Speak until Monday 3 PM Pacific Standard time or forever hold your
peace.

            jak

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