RE: [Seamoby] Minutes of Meeting at IETF 52

James,

I do not care about the minutes. I pointed to what IMO needs to be changed
in the draft based on the discussion in the meeting.

George

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 8:46 PM
To: George Tsirtsis; seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Minutes of Meeting at IETF 52

George,

So are you proposing that the minutes be amended to
include a statement of what Section 4.13 refers to?

            jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Tsirtsis" <G.Tsirtsis@flarion.com>
To: "'James Kempf'" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Minutes of Meeting at IETF 52

> James,
>
> >From the minutes....
>
> "Section 4.13 expanded greatly.
> Q: Is WILL NOT part of the standard terms?
> A: No, is SHOULD be a MUST NOT.
> Q: So if the CT solution verifies the CT info prior to transfer it is
NOT
> acceptable?
> A: We'll take that up on the mailing list."
>
> To remind you 4.13 is "4.13 The context transfer solution WILL NOT
verify
> the context information prior to transfer."
>
> The old "SHOULD" was clearly not acceptable. The new "MUST NOT"
suggestion
> was an obvious and a bit funny :-) mistake...As I pointed out long
time ago
> this requirement should just be removed...it just makes no sense....if
only
> it was the only one... ooops! I did not say that :-0
>
> George
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:24 PM
> To: seamoby@ietf.org
> Subject: [Seamoby] Minutes of Meeting at IETF 52
>
>
> Attached. There is a one week comment period, ending on January 10.
>
>             jak
>

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