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?"

Anyway...

George

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:01 PM
To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call

>
> WG Last call has expired on the following drafts:
>
> 1) draft-ietf-seamoby-context-transfer-problem-stat-04.txt
> 2) draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-02.txt
> 3) draft-ietf-seamoby-car-discovery-issues-01.txt
> 4) draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-00.txt
>
> No comments were received on 1) and 3), they will now be sent to the
> IESG for review.
>
>
>
> Madjid>> You mean 1) and 2), right?
>

No, I mean 1 and 3. George, you and Gary all had comments on 2. That's
what
the next paragraph was about:

>
>
>
>
> On 3), one comment was received to remove 4 requirements, but there
were
> two opinions expressed
> that the document should remain unchanged, so this document will be
sent
> to the IESG as is for
> review.
>

OK, I see the confusion. This should say "On 2)..." Sorry.

            jak

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

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