RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

"Pat R. Calhoun" <pcalhoun@bstormnetworks.com> Thu, 17 January 2002 15:49 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 KAA19472 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:49:38 -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 KAA06797; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:33:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06759 for <seamoby@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:33:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from EXCHSRV.stormventures.com ([65.107.25.226]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18956 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:33:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: by EXCHSRV.stormventures.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <CWXKCG17>; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:32:40 -0800
Message-ID: <DC6C13921CCAFB49BCB8461164A3F4E38D2343@EXCHSRV.stormventures.com>
From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <pcalhoun@bstormnetworks.com>
To: 'Behcet Sarikaya' <behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:30:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19F6B.F3E80230"
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

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Behcet,

The process, to which I provided you a pointer a few days ago,
clearly states that folks express their opinion on the list. Jim and
I will not read other mailing list archives to determine roush
consensus. The seamoby list is the only one we can use to gauge
consensus.

Again, as Jim clearly stated, the only objection we are seeing right
now is yours (although you claim two other people did, and 3 is still
short of rough consensus for a list that has 499 members). If we
guaged there was rough consensus on this issue, then we would most
certainly act. 

Our primary concern at this time is to get the work completed and
achieve our milestones. So how about we get to work and put this
behind us.

PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:12 PM
To: seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description


Several people not authors of proposals (Vijay, Rene) voiced their 
concern on the murky assessment, or am I wrong, or are you waiting
for  
the sky to fall down?

To be on the positive side, we can offer Majordomo based mailing list
support for the design team, if only with no WG draft.

Take it or leave it.

James Kempf wrote:

>
>Any such decision is always subject to WG concensus. Unfortunately,
>the  only voice we are hearing on the mailing list right now is
>yours. One  voice isn't enough for concensus, nor is text from a
>private email 
>forwarded and posted apparently without the author's permission. 
>Goodness knows, we have enough vocal people on this list. It took us
>a  year to get CT requirements done (and we still don't have them in
>IESG  Last Call!) because everybody had an opinion. If I were seeing
>some of  these people, who were not authors of competing proposals
>coming 
>forward and saying that we should change the decison, it would be 
>another matter.
>
>                    jak
>

- -- 
Behcet 




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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPEbuLjN1fXKoxmisEQJfYwCg+H6m+Uo6ly00ONoyYOFLLtGLGbgAoNkr
5WxMNRzg0Qv02oder+oZzLGR
=GIVv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----