Re: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed

Phil,

Pat and I were planning on sending a message out about this. I had asked
Charlie for a pointer to
the draft, you have helpfully supplied it (see below). Thanx.

So we have one strong endorsement of adopting the Charlie's terminology
draft as a WG item.
Anyone else have strong feelings one way or the other on the issue?

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com>
To: <manet@itd.nrl.navy.mil>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:39 AM
Subject: [Seamoby] Terminology Draft Needed

> Hi,
>
> I have seen Charlie pull out the terminology draft at least a few
times! :-)  Why can't
> some WG chair in SeaMoby or MANET adopt it as WG draft?
>
> http://people.nokia.net/~charliep/txt/seamoby/term.txt
>
> It seems that many times arguments are over terminology.  IMO, I would
like to
> the SeaMoby WG become a bridge between MANET and MIP technologies,
> especially with respect to AR discovery and CT.  This terminology
draft would make
> a very nice addition to the SeaMoby WG draft list.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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