Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol

"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Tue, 15 January 2002 17:37 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 MAA06482 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:37:19 -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 MAA14522; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:25:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14493 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:25:36 -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 MAA06119 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 12:25:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from T23KEMPF (dhcp126.docomo-usa.com [172.21.96.126]) by docomolabs-usa.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g0FHOwS23097; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:24:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <003801c19de9$551e6280$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: Vijay Devarapalli <vijayd@iprg.nokia.com>
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya <behcet.sarikaya@alcatel.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
References: <748E8123D183394982E32A511DB3E73610B0B9@daebe005.NOE.Nokia.com> <3C433991.2090906@alcatel.com> <01fe01c19d3d$32563180$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF> <3C437674.F7603259@iprg.nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Re: IP Paging Protocol
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:23:22 -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

Vijay,

> People spend a lot of their time to come up with proposals.
> and they also hope that their proposal goes somewhere in the
> WG. and when the protocol assessment turns out to be murky
> and they complain, I dont think it is right to call them 
> "sour grapes".
> 

I fully appreciate the amount of time people spend putting
into their proposals and I was not trying to denigate that.
A soccer team works hard to win a tournament, but after
the game has been decided, they don't go around
complaining about the result, at least, not if
they are good sportsmen. It seems to me more than passing strange that
the only people who have so far complained about the
decision publically are people whose proposals weren't
selected. Furthermore, authors of two of the
drafts that were not selected have publically declared
themselves ready to continue working with the working
group, and it is really just the author of the third who
continues to agitate against the decision. 

If there was an outcry on the list from others, I would be more
inclined to view the complaints seriously. In the past,
the Seamoby list has not been short of people who
were ready to jump out at the first sign of a technical
controversy and express their opinions. I have not
seen a single one of those people, either in SLC
or on the list, stand up publically and say that they did
not agree with the decision.

I've already agreed that the the decision process
by which the selection was made was not
transparent. I have some text that I have
written which I hope will render more
transparency to the process,  but I have
not yet been able to get a time to
talk with Pat and Allision about it.
If you can just be patient, I will
post the text as soon as we have
had a chance to review it. Let's see if there
are any complaints from neutral
sources about the decision after
I've posted that text.

            jak



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