Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

Hello Prabhakar,

"Chitrapu, Prabhakar R" wrote:

> Hi All:
>
> I would like to make a clarification on the scoring scheme and the
> interpretation of the scores (in particular, high vs low values).
> Unfortunately, I do not have those emails that were talking about the
> interpretation of the scores, so that I am replying to this somewhat
> randomly picked one on this topic.
>
> I think that there is an inaccuracy in thinking that a higher aggregate
> score is 'better' (in the present context). Recall that a score of 1 was
> given if a requirement was not met and a score of 4 was given if the
> requirement was met, so that indeed the higher score is 'better'. However,
> score 2 indicated 'under-specification', whereas score 3 indicated
> 'over-specification'. Here, I am not sure if I can say that
> 'over-specification' is 'better' than 'under-specification' or vice versa.
> Therefore, I think that it is incorrect to interpret a higher aggregate
> score as necessarily denoting a 'better' protocol.
>

It does appear from the text (from James) below that "over-specification"
(which implies a higher score) was considered better, at least in one of the
important areas.

For what it is worth..

Regards,

-Rajeev

> mobility protocols. Draft-renker was judged by the assessment team to
> be overspecific in these areas, in the sense that it contained two
> modes,
> explicit mode and implicit mode, depending on whether Mobile IP was
> supported
> or not. However, considering the relatively immature state of the paging
> protocol design, the decision team felt that providing the working group
> with choices, where the benefits and drawbacks of each choice could be
> clearly weighed, was preferable to providing a fixed decision, so
> draft-renker was judged to be better in this regard.

>
> Please note that my comment is related only to score interpretation and not
> to the much bigger topic of the assessment process and its results.
> However, I do sincerely hope that this discussion will soon be settled
> amicably among all of us!
>
> Best regards
> Prabhakar.
> --------------------
> Prabhakar Chitrapu
> InterDigital Communications Corp.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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