Re: [Seamoby] IP Paging ]Framework discussion

Dear Jim,
  I had suggested a civilized phone call to resolve or at least talk about
the issues. Reading your mail I conclude you do not wish to talk over these
things, but rather resort to written communication.
  I have no personal accusations on any body. I am a professional, I am not
here to deal with persons. There are technical issues, and if I have
technical points to make, I believe I am entitled to my opinion as someone
who has been working on IP Paging issues for sometime probably longer than
many in the WG.
  It is the belief of our team that the renker draft is technically not the
right one as a base document. It is our belief that the base document should
have been dressed bottom up by getting consensus on the technical issues
starting with the architecture. Therefore it really does not matter if this
or that draft coauthor agrees to work on a wrong document. What matters is
the technical issues because we are talking about a protocol, not a
nontechnical issue.
  We may continue to work on our two protocol and one API drafts and if we
somehow come up with enhanced versions we wll share with IETF by submitting
them as I-Ds. Therefore we are unable to participate in the process you
prescribed in your email and this means of course the new draft makers
should not count on our drafts.
  As a final remark, if one of 5 candidate proposals is eliminated by giving
no opinion even though some aspects of this one draft are used as arguments
for eliminating some other drafts, this execution of the agreed upon
assessment process has unfortunately been buggy.

Kindest regards,

Behcet

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