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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:21:43 -0600

My point is not so much process related whether to combine or take one and add others. My intention is to put empahasis on mobility based solutions. From the description on why Renker was chosen, it seems 4.7 was given more preference.  I think WG would agree that Renker particularly does not have any strengths in the mobility based "Implicit" (Mipv6) case.  Hence the suggestion to combine them all.  
 
I am not hooked that combining is the only way, it is more important to make progress one way or another identifying the right issues.

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pat R. Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 22 February, 2002 7:21 PM
To: 'James Kempf'; Sreemanthula Srinivas (NRC/Dallas); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Deadline Approaching: WG Last Call for Paging Assessment Draft

>> 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.  

My thoughts exactly 

PatC

---

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:04:03 +0100

Hi Srinivas,

I think this was said already, but I do not see any difference to what
has been proposed several times already. My understanding of 'combining'
in a reasonable way is to take a flexible framework and ascertain where
to integrate specific parts of the other proposals. In my opinion, this
is easier taking a concept like the renker-draft, which tries to avoid
possibly unnecessary complexity w.r.t. architecture components but
allows to extend individual functions, than starting with a very
specific and complex base. What do you think?

Marco

[email-masked] wrote:

>  My point is not so much process related whether to combine or take
> one and add others. My intention is to put empahasis on mobility based
> solutions. >From the description on why Renker was chosen, it seems
> 4.7 was given more preference.  I think WG would agree that Renker
> particularly does not have any strengths in the mobility based
> "Implicit" (Mipv6) case.  Hence the suggestion to combine them all. I
> am not hooked that combining is the only way, it is more important to
> make progress one way or another identifying the right
> issues.-----Original Message-----
> To: 'James Kempf'; Sreemanthula Srinivas (NRC/Dallas);
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>      Hash: SHA1
>
>      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>      Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use
>      <http://www.pgp.com>
>
>
>      QA/AwUBPHbucjN1fXKoxmisEQIoIwCg9vfwJk2uy4n1LzmfPNsO3kJIN0YAnR/q
>
>      cN+1wgrBzncIgWOhvyx64EIp
>      =oAJZ
>      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>