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

Hello,

Seems I have mail problems (James's mails get filtered due to
them having "MIME EXPLOIT - multiple CTE flds", local problem here..)
I do not know if paging-protocol-assessment has been to last call and
have this comment whenever that is the case.

I have to agree with Yoshihiro's remarks and suggest the following.
Seems the paging assessment team's draft does not map at all to the
actual selection criteria and no textual document on the actual
criteria have been published in a working group document format.
Hence the current assessment document does not represent the decision
and I can't see what is its usefulness as an RFC.

From the mails so far there seems to be no clarity on preference
of criteria and how the important one really map to current proposals.
I read from fragments of James's mails protocol independence and
topology independence are good but fail to see why this would make
draft-renker clearly above other than on hmip-paging on protocol
independence. Hence, I suggest a re-write of an assessment document
explaining the process and criteria by which draft-renker was selected.

BR,

-Jari

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