Re: [Seamoby] proposal on next steps in paging

Behcet,

>   There is a very important issue with the way paging protocol
assessment
> was concluded, i.e. one of the candidate proposals was not eliminated
in a
> way which is not acceptable. As I said in one of my previous emails,
the
> assessment result is moot.
>   I do not we can proceed without this issue being resolved
satisfactorily.
>

I had taken from your previous email response on this topic that you
were
willing to work with Marco and the working group to assure
that the Seamoby protocol reflected the work in
draft-guri-seamboy-lahap-00.txt,
which I presume is the source your discontent. And also to work with
me and whoever else is interested in moving toward finding an IETF home
for
the L2 trigger work on paging which you've been doing. However, it now
seems that this is not the case.

What do you consider satisfactory resolution?

            jak

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