RE: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call

I don't want 4.12 removed, because I don't want to put
the burden of context management (collection and dump)
on the context transfer protocol. Removing 4.12 would
add that extra requirement on CTP. CTP was supposed
to be a mere transport protocol. and that is why
I said you could reword it, if you want to, but not remove.
However, rewording it is up to people that are not happy with
it IMHO :)

I don't care about 4.15, since a MAY is not a requirement
anyway :)

and yes 5.5.2 is a 1000:1 condensation of a lot of reliability discussions,
it should stay. Nobody likes to get garbage instead of actual
context

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:34 PM
To: Gary Kenward; George Tsirtsis; Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1;
seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call

Sorry, Gary, it wasn't a nonvote.

That you don't care about 4.12 and 4.15 means that you don't care
whether we get rid of them. Since George
wants to get rid of them, unless somebody else complains, they will go.

As for 5.5.2, since you want to keep it, it stays.

Since you didn't say anything about 4.13, it goes unless somebody cares
that it stays.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Kenward" <gkenward@nortelnetworks.com>
To: "'James Kempf'" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; "George Tsirtsis"
<G.Tsirtsis@flarion.com>; "Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1"
<Madjid.Nakhjiri@motorola.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:19 PM
Subject: 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
> >
>

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