Re: [Seamoby] proposal on next steps in paging

Behcet,
you are not satisfied working together on the WG's protocol specification
bringing all the good ideas into the base-line concept? What do you propose how
to proceed then? Please tell me.

Marco

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> Hi Marco,
>   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.
>
>   Regards,
>
> Marco Liebsch wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > in order to proceed with DMHA protocol specification, I propose the
> > following:
> > Since the current base-line document is maybe a bit overloaded for being
> > the first Seamoby WG draft, I will take out the Mobile IPv6 specific
> > options out of the main part, but keep the generic explicit signaling in
> > the document. Mobile IPv6 specific optimization could be kept in the
> > documents annex or in a separate document (what do you think?).
> > Furthermore, my opinion is that the concept should allow deployment of
> > several paging strategies, as currently described in the draft. But
> > maybe it is reasonable to extract the sections on paging strategies out
> > of the current draft keeping them in a separate document, which could be
> > further evaluated and extended. This would allow to get a first
> > framework draft, which is clearly arranged and open for further
> > specification of open issues.
> > What about the following:
> > Coming up with a first famework draft end of January, possibly having
> > some further ideas and issues already addressed by then. Then we have
> > about one month in order to prepare a second version ready for
> > submission right in time for IETF#53.
> >
> > First issues to be addressed with respect to the base-line concept
> > should be the issues described in the assessment draft. Maybe this is a
> > good starting point for proceeding. As mentioned in Salt Lake already,
> > all protocol proposals have very good ideas, which should be discussed
> > and considered to be folded into a common WG DMHA protocol draft.
> > Comments are appreciated.
> >
> > I am looking forward to working with you all on bringing the DMHA
> > protocol specification ahead.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Marco
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seamoby mailing list
> > Seamoby@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>
> --
> Behcet

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