Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Deadline Approaching: WG Last Call for Paging Assessment Draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:28:16 -0600

yes. But that in itself will not provide a complete solution, more work still needs to be done.
 
thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pat R. Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 22 February, 2002 5:26 PM
To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (NRC/Dallas); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Deadline Approaching: WG Last Call for Paging Assessment Draft

> From this point of view, I would nominate proposals that have base 
> mobility support  without any particular references to LMM. The 
> approach would be to merge all good  aspects of different mobility 
> based proposals(MIP & MIPv6) from renker, sarikaya and  koodli 
> drafts (without the concept of a base draft). 

Trying to understand your proposal here. 

Are you stating that we shouldn't start with any particular starting 
point, but rather starting pulling text from all directions into a 
single document? 

PatC

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:29:56 -0800

> yes. But that in itself will not provide a complete solution, more
work still needs to be done.

So I have some difficulty seeing how that differs from taking a base
document and pulling in pieces from other documents where working group
concensus is established to change something.

As I believe has been demonstrated many times over the last couple
weeks, having a base document makes it easier to criticize something.
And you still need an editor to do the document composition and keep
track of issues, regardless of how you go about it.

            jak

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