RE: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call

["Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hemant

  > Opps, that was a slip of pen, of course. I meant Seamoby, 
  > and not NSIS. So, 
  > was the concern raised on SEAMOBY list, and what exactly was it?

=> I don't know where the spanish inquisition is going :) but
we've already agreed to the change. Btw, i never claimed to
have sent this comment during last call, I always said
I made the comment in London. London IETF _meeting_

  > 
  > I do not know if it is good to change the name 
  > "anticipated" now as, for 
  > one, it has references at other places in document, as well 
  > as there is no 
  > other better alternative name. I do not think that AR-based 
  > better suited 
  > than anticipated. Anticipated discovery means discovery 
  > before actual 
  > handoff event. It could be AR-based on anyting else based.

=> I don't care what it's called as long as it is meaningful
and consistent. If people want to go with anticipated 
then be it, call them AR-based and MN-based anticipation. 
If this WG has some kind of allergic reaction towards MIP
terminology then replace MN with something else. 
But simply attaching anticipation to AR-based discovery
only is not correct.


  > 
  > However, we can certainly finetune the text to state that 
  > _a set_ of CARs 
  > (_not all_ CARs) are discovered. 

=> Yes this should be done too.


With that, can we close 
  > this tread now and 
  > conclude on the issues draft? Please let us know. Thanks.

=> I was under the impression that we concluded already as per
James' email. My comment is to change both the anticipated 
terminology and the first sentence under 4.1.

Thanks, 
Hesham

  > 
  > Hemant
  > 
  > 
  > >From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[e-mail]>
  > >To: "'Hemant Chaskar'" <[e-mail]>, 
  > [e-mail],    
  > >     "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" 
  > <[e-mail]>,        
  > >[e-mail]
  > >Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call
  > >Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:58:32 +0100
  > >
  > >Hi Hemant,
  > >
  > >   > I also did not see any comment from you on the NSIS list
  > >   > during the first
  > >   > last call that has not been attended to.
  > >
  > >=> I'm not on the NSIS list. This is a seamoby doc.
  > >
  > >   > Also, please note the difference between the "issues" 
  > draft, the
  > >   > "requirements" draft and the "solutions" draft.
  > >
  > >=> I made comments on both. I realise they are 2 different
  > >things.
  > >
  > >Hesham
  > >
  > >
  > >   >
  > >   > Hemant
  > >   >
  > >   > >From: "James Kempf" <[e-mail]>
  > >   > >To: "Hesham Soliman \(ERA\)"
  > >   > <[e-mail]>,
  > >   > ><[e-mail]>
  > >   > >Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call
  > >   > >Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:19:05 -0800
  > >   > >
  > >   > >Hesham,
  > >   > >
  > >   > >The usual procedure for comments is that they be sent to
  > >   > the list. Any
  > >   > >Last
  > >   > >Call comments must be sent to the list in order that there
  > >   > be a record
  > >   > >of them. I don't recall any email from you on
  > >   > >draft-ietf-seamoby-car-discovery-issues-01.txt
  > >   > >during the last call period, but perhaps I missed it. If
  > >   > you have any
  > >   > >comments,
  > >   > >please send them out within the next day.
  > >   > >
  > >   > >Also note that we are talking here about the problem
  > >   > statement, not the
  > >   > >requirements.
  > >   > >I have noted a thread over the last couple days on
  > >   > requirements, and
  > >   > >your comments, will
  > >   > >naturally be taken into account when the requirements
  > >   > draft is done.
  > >   > >
  > >   > >                 jak
  > >   > >
  > >   > >----- Original Message -----
  > >   > >From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[e-mail]>
  > >   > >To: "'James Kempf'" <[e-mail]>; 
  > <[e-mail]>
  > >   > >Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:59 AM
  > >   > >Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call
  > >   > >
  > >   > >
  > >   > > >   >
  > >   > > >   > WG Last call has expired on the following drafts:
  > >   > > >   >
  > >   > > >   > 1) 
  > draft-ietf-seamoby-context-transfer-problem-stat-04.txt
  > >   > > >   > 2) draft-ietf-seamoby-ct-reqs-02.txt
  > >   > > >   > 3) draft-ietf-seamoby-car-discovery-issues-01.txt
  > >   > > >   > 4) 
  > draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-00.txt
  > >   > > >   >
  > >   > > >   > No comments were received on 1) and 3), they will
  > >   > now be sent to
  > >   > >the
  > >   > > >   > IESG for review.
  > >   > > >
  > >   > > > => Just a minute, we _are_ discussing comments on 3).
  > >   > > > I've also made these comments in London.
  > >   > > >
  > >   > > > Hesham
  > >   > > >
  > >   > >
  > >   > >
  > >   > >_______________________________________________
  > >   > >Seamoby mailing list
  > >   > >[e-mail]
  > >   > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
  > >   >
  > >   >
  > >   > 
  > _________________________________________________________________
  > >   > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
  > >   > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
  > >   >
  > >
  > >_______________________________________________
  > >Seamoby mailing list
  > >[e-mail]
  > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
  > 
  > 
  > _________________________________________________________________
  > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
  > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
  > 

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby