Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

[Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm.com>]

At 12:42 AM -0400 4/28/09, Richard Barnes wrote:

>  Ok, we clearly need to revise the text, since that's a pretty 
> serious misunderstanding.  The text doesn't constrain the use of 
> the protocols at all

I think the text as written is pretty clear that there is no constraint.

>  -- in fact it says "they underlying protocols can also be used to 
> support other models in which parts of the process are delegated to 
> the Communications Service Provider".

Yes, exactly correct.

>  The point of the current text is just that those scenarios aren't 
> discussed in this draft, not that the overall model doesn't apply 
> to those scenarios.

Yes, exactly.  The text merely clarifies what the draft discusses.

>  Randall Gellens wrote:
> >  I hum for the text, which doesn't constrain the use of the 
> > protocols, but merely describes the assumptions under which it 
> > works.  As such, it is useful and helpful.  Even for those who 
> > think the assumptions are obvious, it does no harm to state them.
> >
> >  We had a lot of debate on this in SFO, and the text in this 
> > version was discussed on the mailing list in the days during and 
> > following the meeting.

--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I love the smell of excessive quoting in the morning.
                                     --Steve Dorner