Re: [Seamoby] comments on the paging protocol assessment draft

Jari,

Good points. I will add a section in the assessment document that
explains how the final decision was arrived at.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jari T. Malinen" <jmalinen@iprg.nokia.com>
To: "Yoshihiro Ohba" <yohba@tari.toshiba.com>
Cc: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] comments on the paging protocol assessment draft

> Hello,
>
> Seems I have mail problems (James's mails get filtered due to
> them having "MIME EXPLOIT - multiple CTE flds", local problem here..)
> I do not know if paging-protocol-assessment has been to last call and
> have this comment whenever that is the case.
>
> I have to agree with Yoshihiro's remarks and suggest the following.
> Seems the paging assessment team's draft does not map at all to the
> actual selection criteria and no textual document on the actual
> criteria have been published in a working group document format.
> Hence the current assessment document does not represent the decision
> and I can't see what is its usefulness as an RFC.
>
> >From the mails so far there seems to be no clarity on preference
> of criteria and how the important one really map to current proposals.
> I read from fragments of James's mails protocol independence and
> topology independence are good but fail to see why this would make
> draft-renker clearly above other than on hmip-paging on protocol
> independence. Hence, I suggest a re-write of an assessment document
> explaining the process and criteria by which draft-renker was
selected.
>
> BR,
>
> -Jari
>

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