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

"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Sat, 22 December 2001 05:57 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10230 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:57:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA27656; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:44:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA27627 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:44:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from docomolabs-usa.com (fridge.docomo-usa.com [216.98.102.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10151 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:44:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from T23KEMPF (dhcp142.docomo-usa.com [172.21.96.142]) by docomolabs-usa.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id fBM5hG808554; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:43:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <000f01c18aab$54a673c0$8e6015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: "Jari T. Malinen" <jmalinen@iprg.nokia.com>, Yoshihiro Ohba <yohba@tari.toshiba.com>
Cc: seamoby@ietf.org
References: <20011221000542.GE1492@catfish> <021401c18a56$97540110$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF> <20011221203645.GD709@catfish> <3C23C5C9.5E41C971@iprg.nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] comments on the paging protocol assessment draft
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:41:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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