Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

James,
 Following comments:
1. This text is not consistent with the minutes and the slides on which 
your presentation was based at WG meeting in IETF 52.
2. Regarding newly introduced comments on draft-guri, how come an aspect 
that is good to have in the final draft becomes the reason for rejection 
to select it?
  Since you made no comments on draft-guri at SLC I could not raise this 
question there, sorry about that :)
3. The comments on hmipv6 belong to you personally, please check the 
slides on WG document status of MIP WG, you should be able to see the 
official opinion of WG chairs of MIP WG. I think that it is a serious 
problem to state strong opinions on the business of other WGs especially 
if they are flawed.

4. The text does not mention the simple sum of the marks given to each 
draft?

  In short this text adds to the controversy failing to resolve 
anything.Regardless of what people say the conclusion is not going to 
change, right? Then why ask opinion of WG members? Is this normal? I do 
not think such a system can be maintained.

Regards,

--behcet

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