RE: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call

Since I spoke up before and my name was mentioned in the recent
exchange....

I do not care about 4.12 or 4.15, one way or another. 

I do care about 5.5.2, but these requirements have revisited 
so many times that the rationale behind them are ethereal, 
so I will sit firmly on the fence.

How that for an explicit non-vote?

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
> Sent: January 11, 2002 17:10
> To: George Tsirtsis; Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; seamoby@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > >From what I remember Gary said that he supports the 
> removal of 3 out
> of the
> > 4 points....so the 2 opinions against the removal do not constitute
> what I
> > would call....WG consensus do they? In fact only Madjid 
> said that "we
> could
> > re-word but not remove"...who was the 2nd person against removal?
> >
> > Maybe you should ask "who cares?"
> >
> 
> Alright, but this is *the very last time*. We do really need 
> to get this
> document on the way.
> This is a concensus call. Is there any opposition to removing the
> following requirements
> from draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-02.txt:
> 
> 4.12 The context information to be transferred MUST be 
> available at the
> AR
> performing the transfer, prior to the initiation of a given 
> phase of the
> context transfer.
> 4.13 The context transfer solution WILL NOT verify the context
> information
> prior to transfer.
> 4.15 The context transfer solution MAY include methods for 
> interworking
> with
> non-IETF mobility solutions.
> 5.5.2 A context update MUST preserve the integrity, and thus the
> meaning, of
> the context at each receiving AR.
> 
> Speak until Monday 3 PM Pacific Standard time or forever hold your
> peace.
> 
>             jak
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> Seamoby@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> 