Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

Behcet,

You are quoting me out of context.... my comment was not about
the protocol assessment.

Vijay

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
> Several people not authors of proposals (Vijay, Rene) voiced their
> concern on the murky assessment, or am I wrong, or are you waiting for
> the sky to fall down?
> 
> To be on the positive side, we can offer Majordomo based mailing list
> support for the design team, if only with no WG draft.
> 
> Take it or leave it.
> 
> James Kempf wrote:
> 
> >
> >Any such decision is always subject to WG concensus.
> >Unfortunately, the only voice we are hearing on the mailing list
> >right now is yours. One voice isn't enough for concensus, nor
> >is text from a private email forwarded and posted apparently without the
> >author's permission. Goodness knows, we have enough vocal
> >people on this list. It took us a year to get CT requirements
> >done (and we still don't have them in IESG Last Call!) because
> >everybody had an opinion. If I were seeing some of these people, who
> >were not authors of competing proposals coming forward and
> >saying that we should change the decison, it would be another
> >matter.
> >
> >                    jak
> >
> 
> --
> Behcet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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