Re: [Seamoby] IP Paging ]Framework discussion

Behcet,

>   You still have not posted the slides neither the minutes. How many
times
> should I ask this?

I will post the minutes today, the slides are on Pat's machine and he
has some kind of crisis at work that requires his full attention. When
Pat gets done, he will post the slides, though we currently do
not have a site because diameter.org went down due to @Home's
demise. Perhaps Alcatel would like to volunteer a publically accessable
place
until we find another home?

>   My point is very simple. Here is someone who was brought on board to
> cochair a WG in order to help in the protocol assessment of paging
> proposals. This person has very many opinions. He makes sure to give a
reply
> to any message posted on the mailing list.
>   However this same person somehow forgets to make any opinion on one
the
> paging proposals jeopardizing the assessment process.
>   He seems to admit this and asks some way out on the one hand and he
> insists on the false conclusion of the assessment on the other hand.
>   The above is too good to believe. What do you think?
>

Behcet, I haven't a clue about what you are talking about here. These
sound to me like some kind of accusation against me, though I cannot
be sure. If that is the case, then I suggest that you come right out
and make the accusation and I will deal with it.

>   The fact is that the assesment process is wrong. All IETF WGs
receive
> several protocol proposals, Seamoby is not the only WG. However the
process
> used by Seamoby is unique to Seamoby.
>   Jim, I am ready to discuss this issue over the phone. My phone
number is
> below. Feel free to call me or give your phone number I am going to
call
> you.
>
>

The  very same assessment process was used by the AAA group. You can
send email to Bernard Abboba if you care to confirm this. However, the
outcome was different. In that case, one of the protocol
proposals exhibited considerably more implementation and
design maturity than the others and met the requirements more
completely, and so the results of
the assessment team were definitive: that proposal was
selected.

At the request of Yoshi and Jari, I have written up a
description of the decision process we used, it is
currently under review by Pat and Allision for
inclusion into the assessment draft. The WG
will get to comment when the draft
goes through WG last call again. The difference
with the AAA group is that the assessment process
in Seamoby resulted in an indeterminate result.
The assessment team did not recommend one
of the protocol proposals as the basis for harmonization, they
recommended only that either harmonization begin
or the authors go through another round of design
work.

The working group co-chairs decided against the
latter, and decided to select one protocol
proposal as the basis for harmonization, subject
to WG concensus, of course. This was done,
the text to be included in the document
will explain the decision process. There
was a presentation at the WG meeting,
comments and concerns of the protocol
authors were duely noted.
If what you are complaining about is
that the WG chairs basically made
a judgement call about which protocol
proposal should be selected, then
I'm sorry to say that this is certainly
within the duties of IETF WG chairs,
provided the chairs abide by
WG concensus. I believe
we have concensus on how to proceed,
since you seem to be the only person
who continues to complain.

Behcet, as I have continued to say, your
team had positive contributions and I
would appreciate if you would bring
them to the list instead of making veiled
and unveiled accusations about the decision
process. The other protocol proposal
authors seem to be willing to work together
with Marco and the WG, even though they are probably
no more happy than you are that their
proposals were not selected as the
basis for harmonization.

            jak

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