Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Assessment Presentation at SLC

Jim,
  Are you going to post or not the slides you presented at SLC?

James Kempf wrote:

>
> With regard to the paging assessment, if you look at
> draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-00.txt, you will see that
> there is a separate
> column for rating draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt, and a separate set of
> comments. So, even
> though both drafts were done by the same assessor (which is what I meant
> by them
> being bundled), the assessments were written up separately. However,
> since
> draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt does not present a complete solution for
> IP paging,

Sorry I do not get this argument.
The assessment draft gave marks to all drafts and the marks
draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt received were not less than the marks others
received if not more.
It was your final personal decision presented in the drafts that made
comments on specifics of each draft. There, unfortunately were no slides,
i.e. no assessment of draft-guri-seamoby-lahap-00.txt and it said that the
decision on this draft was based on draft-sarikaya-seamoby-mipv6hp-00.txt.

This was the main point of my previous mail.
Good to remind.  Let's come to the point. Shall we?

--
Behcet

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