RE: IETF-SDO liaison (was Re: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I think it is our collective responsiblity not to make false claims when
moving our agenda forward.  This is true with any group. 

Liaison should not be used for fact checking.  This will create
extra-ordinary work for them. They have better things to do.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay.devarapalli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:53 PM
> To: Avi Lior
> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: IETF-SDO liaison (was Re: The Emperor Has No 
> Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?)
> 
> Avi Lior wrote:
> 
> > The statement regaring GEE and PANA was not made by me but 
> rather by 
> > your company!  In order to sway support towards EAP over 
> HRPD, Qualcom 
> > made statements that PANA was dead at the IETF and that GEE will be 
> > standardize at the IETF.
> 
> perhaps the IETF should have been consulted through the 
> 3GPP2-IETF liaison?
> 
> actually I have seen some not-so-correct claims being made 
> about IETF protocols in other SDOs too (for e.g.
> NETLMM in 3GPP). the SDOs should be making more use of the 
> liaisons instead of believing individual claims.
> 
> Vijay
> 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]