Subject: [Seamoby] Moving forward with paging

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:13:20 -0800

All,

As many of you know, last week we asked the WG for their comments on
how to proceed with the paging work.  A summary of the comments that
came in is:

       Start from a known protocol - 5
       Reopen selection phase - 3  
       Design team to start from scratch - 2  
       Drop the work altogether - 1  

Many did not give opinions obviously, and these numbers are not to be
viewed as a "vote" (our AD reminds us that rough consensus is not
voting).  But considering the 5 and 3, there is at least a preference
for starting with a candidate, rather 
than from scratch.

So the issue that needs to be resolved is which protocol should be
used, since the protocol assessment wasn't conclusive, the chairs had
picked one based on the findings of the assessment team. However,
since an (admitedly useless) numbering rating scheme was used in the
assessment, it was hard to really determine which protocol should be
used.

After discussing the matter ourselves, and with our AD, Allison, we
decided to revise the paging assessment draft and remove the useless
numerical ratings. This means that each draft must now be assessed
using just technical merit. Further, a new section has been added to
the document stating the chairs' basis (including charter
reasons) for viewing the Renker draft as the starting point most
likely to get us to the requirements and to a IETF-quality
protocol...

So we are calling a WG last call on the assessment document
(draft-ietf-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment-01.txt). We encourage
folks to provide their *technical* comments on the draft should they
believe that the findings of the assessment team are incorrect. We do
ask the WG members to kindly refrain from posting any process related
comments, since it detracts us from achieving our milestones. Once
the WG last call is complete, we will collect the comments that have
WG concensus and make any necessary changes to the draft. The WG last
call ends February 25th.

The end result is that the WG will get to decide which document is to
be used as the *starting point*.

Thanks for your patience,

PatC & jak

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:38:40 -0600

Pat R. Calhoun wrote:

>  
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use < http://www.pgp.com >
>
> iQA/AwUBPFrawTN1fXKoxmisEQIaWQCfYIis0Nsd52Q0Xv7wA77/RWn4J9IAn0t2
> FoREK4Kavht9sSs7VjZIhLlV
> =EmAk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Dear all,
  Based on the technical evaluation of all the drafts I posted in a 
previous mail on this thread, I propose draft-guri as the starting 
point. This draft uses all the entities of the requirements architecture 
and it does not make any assumptions on the mobility protocol mapping. 
This means the text from other drafts (security from draft-ohba, 
time-slot based paging from draft-sarikaya, mipv6 mappings from 
draft-renker and draft-koodli) can be easily incorporated. Along with 
its own goodies of the triggers, draft-guri would make a perfect 
starting point.
  My 2 euro cents.

-- 
Behcet