Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Moving forward with paging

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:57:50 -0800

I think what it means is that we log this as a problem that must be
resolved once we've selected the base. It is also quite acceptable to
be discussing possible solutions at this time.

I'm still not convinced that it means we need two separate protocols,
but I could be wrong.

PatC
- -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:40 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Moving forward with paging

James, Pat and all,
  I thought we should first sort out the problems in RFC3154 that I
pointed out and so far no reply came.
  Therefore it is fair to conclude that RFC3154's requirements 4.7
and 4.8 are impossible to be satified in one protocol and according
to well established rules in IETF it is possible to define several
protocols in one draft of standards track and here is the
mathematical proof that it is impossible to satisfy 4.7 and 4.8.
  Recalling back from the design team discussions, can I state that
James insisted on puting these two requirements despite e.g. my
comments and therefore led people like draft-renker, draft-ohba and
even draft-koodli to come up with strange drafts in which a different
protocol is presented as a mode?
  How can we continue to discuss the details in these two drafts? 
They do not in any way present viable solutions to the problem. it is
just loss of time to do that.

Regards,

James Kempf wrote:

Behcet,
I appreciate your solutions but can you please bundle them in a
draft,like draft-kempf so that we can judge in its entirety?
As Yoshi pointed out, I didn't propose anything that draft-ohba
anddraft-renker didn't. What we are trying to sort out now is
themechanism.The proposal in draft-ohba isn't complete, and the
proposal indraft-renkerhas some problems.Technical discussion of this
sort is, after all, the intent of thismailing list.           
jak_______________________________________________Seamoby mailing
[email-masked]://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

- -- 
Behcet Sarikaya
Network Strategy Group, Mobile Networking Team
Alcatel USA M/S 026
1000 Coit Road  PB7
Plano, TX 75075 USA
Email: [email-masked]
Phone: (972) 477 2794 Fax: (972) 519 2460

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:46:42 -0600

Even if it means the base draft will turn out to be ineligible?
Because we are taking about a problem in the requirements upon which the 
assessment process was conducted.

Pat R. Calhoun wrote:

>  
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> From: Behcet Sarikaya [ mailto:[email-masked] ]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use < http://www.pgp.com >
>
> iQA/AwUBPG0v/jN1fXKoxmisEQJkfgCfd7B4D2ZBOIzKZ4ErHhhu9zmeQ10AoMdg
> 4G2qWLedt7EjGX15T0/P7f2L
> =M7NK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Regards,

-- 
Behcet