[Seamoby] Deadline Approaching: WG Last Call for Paging Assessment Draft

"James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> Fri, 22 February 2002 20:11 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 PAA20362 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:11:17 -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 OAA21646; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:59:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA21614 for <seamoby@ns.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:59:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fridge.docomo-usa.com (fridge.docomo-usa.com [216.98.102.228]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19670 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:59:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from T23KEMPF (dhcp126.docomolabs-usa.com [172.21.96.126]) by fridge.docomo-usa.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id g1MJwre14289 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:58:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <00de01c1bbdb$217ff370$7e6015ac@T23KEMPF>
From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: seamoby@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:57:17 -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
Subject: [Seamoby] Deadline Approaching: WG Last Call for Paging Assessment Draft
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

Folks,

The deadline for WG Last Call on the paging assessment,
draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-01.txt, is Monday 4 PM
Pacific Time. Please send in any comments by then. At the conclusion of
WG Last Call, we will be submitting the paging assessment draft to the
IESG after making any changes that have WG concensus.

Since my last email on this topic, we have had two additional
suggestions from the WG.

An editorial suggestion was made to divide Section 4 into separate
subsections. I'll take a look at the document next week and see if this
makes sense. At first glance, the proposed subsections do look as if
they would improve readability.

A suggestion was made by another WG member that, instead of selecting a
single draft as a starting point, the WG should select all drafts and
have each draft focus on a different part of the paging problem. So far,
there has been no further comment from the WG on this proposal and so it
does not look like there is concensus for it at this time. If you are
interested in commenting on this proposal, please review the email
describing it at the Seamoby archives and post your comment.


                        jak


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