Re: stds-802-mobility: High level agenda is available
Jim, addressing your last point, the way we get requirements is to have
consensus on them. Therefore, until that consensus is formed for a
particular requirement there is no agreement for that requirement, and
therefore no requirement in place. That does not preclude our adding it
later.
Jim, perhaps you want to clarify your posting with one further reply. If
you want to discuss this further with me, please feel free to call me.
I would especially like to hear what others think about this proposed
process, or any other process that they believe will actually lead quickly
to closure.
NOTE TO JIM AND EVERYONE ELSE:
Jim, I know that you may not have had control over the final words in your
email. However, the end of your posting contains the following message:
"This communication is confidential and intended solely for the
addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error,
please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the
message without disclosing it. Thank you."
That message is highly inappropriate on any email posted on an IEEE 802
reflector. Everyone that has similar language attached to their document
should work with their IT department to find out how to post to the 802
reflectors without its inclusion.
I do not consider the attached posting confidential in any way. In fact it
should be on a publicly accessible URL.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ragsdale" <ragsdale@rtp.ericsson.se>
To: "802-mobility" <stds-802-mobility@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: stds-802-mobility: High level agenda is available
>
> Hello folks:
>
> About the only thing I can agree with in Bob's post is that we do not have
> a baseline requirements document. This was made very clear on the last
> requirements CG call. We still need to go through the different
> alternatives before we can have any section by section hard process. We
> are not to that point yet. I especially do not agree that if a one shot
> process cannot agree to the existing text then there is no requirement,
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Ragsdale
> Consulting Engineer
> Standards and Regulatory Group
> Solutions Management, GSNA
> Ericsson Inc
> 8001 Development Drive
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
> Telephone +1 919 472 7548
>
>
>
> This communication is confidential and intended solely for the
addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error,
please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the
message without disclosing it. Thank you.
>
> E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption,
interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only
send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such
corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any
consequences thereof.
>