IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

"Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se> Fri, 18 January 2002 09:58 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 EAA05169 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:58:35 -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 EAA02476; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:39:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA02444 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:39:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from albatross-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se (albatross-ext.wise.edt.ericsson.se [194.237.142.116]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04902 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 04:39:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from esealnt461 (esealnt461.al.sw.ericsson.se [153.88.251.61]) by albatross.wise.edt.ericsson.se (8.11.0/8.11.0/WIREfire-1.3) with SMTP id g0I9dmJ12277 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:39:48 +0100 (MET)
Received: FROM esealnt400.al.sw.ericsson.se BY esealnt461 ; Fri Jan 18 10:36:07 2002 +0100
Received: by esealnt400 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <Z1HXM8TK>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4DA6EA82906FD511BE2F00508BCF053801C4C223@Esealnt861.al.sw.ericsson.se>
From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>
To: 'James Kempf' <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>, Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <Madjid.Nakhjiri@motorola.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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

  > That was only one consideration. Another was that it did not meet
  > the requirement of not being dependent on a specific
  > mobility protocol.
  > 

=> 'considerations' should be part of the requirements. 
Not withstanding that, to go by your comments about the 
process (being murky), I think it seems reasonable 
to reconsider the outcome. Especially since (at least 
it seems to me) that the clarifications for the basis of 
selection have significantly 'expanded' since the meeting
in SLC. 

So maybe the decision needs some revisiting, at least
for reassurances, if nothing else. 
There seems to be some concern from several people.

Hesham


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

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status