Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] draft-ietf-mobileip-3gwireless-ext-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 22:01:20 -0500

Pat, Charlie,
I may have missed the comment. Regardless, if the comments make sense, it's
still not too late to put them in now.

W.r.t to Charlie's message types comment, one of the big reason for not using
the Binding Update is that we feel some of the extension we added to the
Registration Update message has nothing to do with "route optimization" and it
does not make sense to twist Binding Update  for the purpose. Otherwise, the
"route optimization" draft will soon become a dumping ground.

If Charlie is willing to make the change, we have no problem to update our
draft.

--Yingchun.

"pcalhoun/@eng.sun.com" <Pat.Calhoun on 08/18/2000 05:47:40 PM

Please respond to "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

Sent by:  "[email-masked]" <Pat.Calhoun

To:   Yingchun Xu/MW/US/3Com
cc:   [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: [MOBILE-IP] draft-ietf-mobileip-3gwireless-ext-04.txt

Again, not that I am trying to take one side or another, but I do recall
Charlie sending his objections to the list regarding the message types. The
fact that his comments were ignored was not terribly wise, and his objections
to the IETF should not come as a surprise.

PatC

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 16:09:40 -0700

Yingchun,

As an FYI. It is typically unethical to post someone's private e-mail to the
mailing list without the author's consent.

PatC
> Registration Update message has nothing to do with "route optimization" and
> it does not make sense to twist Binding Update  for the purpose. Otherwise,
> the "route optimization" draft will soon become a dumping ground.
>

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:08:26 -0500

Pat,

While Yingchun didn't explicitly ask my permission, I'm glad that my
points were made here and I still stand by them.  I did intend to post
something here after seeing Charles' comments also posted here.

-Pete

"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> (psc) writes:

psc> Yingchun,

psc> As an FYI. It is typically unethical to post someone's private
psc> e-mail to the mailing list without the author's consent.

psc> PatC

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 10:29:10 -0500

Pat,

Sorry, I didn't realize Yingchun had posted a private message
of yours.  I was referring to the off-list message of mine that
he re-posted to the list.  I guess he's picked up a bad habit. :)

-Pete

>> something here after seeing Charles' comments also posted here.

psc> ????

psc> The e-mail that Yingchun sent to the list was a *private* e-mail
psc> between Yingchun, Charlie and I. It was not intended to the
psc> list. Are you stating that it is now OK to send private e-mail to
psc> the world? What, exactly, is your point?  I have no problems
psc> discussing this problem on the list, and in fact, I was actively
psc> discussing the problem, but private e-mails *are* private.

psc> PatC

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:11:08 -0700

> something here after seeing Charles' comments also posted here.

????

The e-mail that Yingchun sent to the list was a *private* e-mail between
Yingchun, Charlie and I. It was not intended to the list. Are you stating that
it is now OK to send private e-mail to the world? What, exactly, is your point?
 I have no problems discussing this problem on the list, and in fact, I was
actively discussing the problem, but private e-mails *are* private.

PatC

> >> I may have missed the comment. Regardless, if the comments make sense,
> it's >> still not too late to put them in now.
> >>
> >> W.r.t to Charlie's message types comment, one of the big reason for not
> using >> the Binding Update is that we feel some of the extension we added
> to the >> Registration Update message has nothing to do with "route
> optimization" and >> it does not make sense to twist Binding Update  for the
> purpose. Otherwise, >> the "route optimization" draft will soon become a
> dumping ground. >>
> >> draft. >>
> >> Charlie sending his objections to the list regarding the message types.
> The >> fact that his comments were ignored was not terribly wise, and his
> objections >> to the IETF should not come as a surprise.
> >>
> >> PatC
>