IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement

Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <Madjid.Nakhjiri@motorola.com> Wed, 17 July 2002 23:44 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02649 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:44:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07883; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:42:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07856 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:42:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from motgate4.mot.com (motgate4.mot.com [144.189.100.102]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02590 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:41:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: [from mothost.mot.com (mothost.mot.com [129.188.137.101]) by motgate4.mot.com (motgate4 2.1) with ESMTP id QAA20472 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:42:28 -0700 (MST)]
Received: [from il27exm07.cig.mot.com (IL27EXM07.cig.mot.com [136.182.15.116]) by mothost.mot.com (MOT-pobox 2.0) with ESMTP id QAA27564 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:42:41 -0700 (MST)]
Received: by IL27EXM07.cig.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52) id <3FLZX801>; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:42:26 -0500
Message-ID: <35DBB8B7AC89D4118E98009027B1009B08AD55BA@IL27EXM10.cig.mot.com>
From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <Madjid.Nakhjiri@motorola.com>
To: "'john.loughney@nokia.com'" <john.loughney@nokia.com>, kempf@docomolabs-usa.com, seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 18:42:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org

-----Original Message-----
From: john.loughney@nokia.com [mailto:john.loughney@nokia.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 5:01 PM
To: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com; seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement


Hi James,

> "Out of scope" is typically WG charter language. I know the 
> SHOULD/SHOULD NOT sounds a bit funny, but I think we need to
> express this in a way that is more requirements language.

Then how about changing:

      ... the CT solution need
      not support it, but it should not provide a hinderance to those
feature contexts
      that do.

Madjid>> I knew I should read some more :) Need not is better. 

to:
      ... the CT solution is not requireed to directly support
synchronization, but
      may support simple methods for the synchronization context for feature
contexts
      that do.

Madjid>> Don't know what purpose "simple" feels, it's vague and creates
caos later. I prefer "methods for providing updated context..." instead of
synchronization, of reasons I mentioned. 



John

_______________________________________________
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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status