Re: [Seamoby] comments on the paging protocol assessment draft

Yoshi,

> First thing is the process of selection. The criteria for selection
> from the proposals, and the result should be included in the
> assessment draft.  Specifically, the selected protocol is the one
> having the largest number of the lowest ratings, i.e., containing six
> 1's, and neither having the largest number of the highest ratings nor
> having the highest avarage rate.  There is a logical leap between the
> ratings and the final selection. So I think that selection team had
> some criteria other than the ratings.
>

Yes, this wasn't clear. As I believe was discussed on the list, the
final decision was not made by the selection team, it was made
in consultation between the WG chairs and our AD. We based
our decision on the selection team's assessment and recommended
course of action(s). There was a judgement call involved, and the
judgement was based to a certain degree on what requirements
we felt were most important, in addition to process considerations.

In particular, as I mentioned in my previous email to Behcet,
independence
from mobility protocol was considered a first priority requirement,
because
this has been a foundational principle of all Seamoby work. In addition,
we
did not want the protocol to be encumbered by or dependent upon the
process of another working group, as this would set up a dependence
between our work and the work of another working group that could
result in delays. Finally, requirements originating out of the problem
statement
had higher priority than other requirements. So, for example, the
requirement of indepenence of paging area from subnet topology
was identified in the problem statement and therefore had higher
priority. These requirements are ones that we believe will give IP
paging
an advantage over current practice, and therefore are likely to serve as
an
incentive for implementation and deployment.

> And the second thing is that the comments that were posted by some of
> the authors of the candidate protocols before the SLC meeting should
> also be reflected to the assessment draft, if those comments are
> relevant.
>

The assessment is meant to be a record of the assessment team
deliberations
and not a complete transcript of the working group's dialog on the
process.
The comments posted by the authors are part of the mailing list archive.

However, I should probably remove the sentence in the abstract that says
the assessment draft will make a recommendation, since it doesn't.

Thank you for posting this. It is very important that the decision
making process
be transparent, and I agree that the WG chairs have not done a very good
job of explaining it. I hope this makes things clearer.

                jak

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