i kind of think before we know if there is to be one set of
requirements or two (or more) we should start talking
through some of the controversial issues.
so far this thread, except for a brief control theory
discussion has been mostly process. which is fine. but at
this point it would be better, in my not alwasy so humble
opinion, to talk through issues.
i apologize for not having ready the other doc yet, but as
soon as i do, i am sure i will have something or other to
comment on.
a.
Alex Zinin wrote:
> Frank,
>
>
>>Howard, Avri and I talked about this at some length. Then
>>Sean and I talked. As the IRTF/RRG is set up, it is not our
>>job to come up with The Definitive Once And For All Set of
>>Routing Requirements. That smacks of "A Standard" and the IRTF
>>does not do Standards... So, if two different groups within the
>>RRG wish to produce a document and those documents overlap in
>>some way, that's quite OK. The IETF if/when they wish would,
>>in theory, spin up some working group(s) to look into the
>>Standardization side of things and _they_ would need to come
>>up with The One True Answer...
>>
>
> Before the IETF will attack the engineering side of the problem,
> they will need to have a single set of requirements. If they
> don't have it from the IRTF, a requirements WG will need to
> be established in the IETF to do this and I suppose the same
> set of people will be active there.
>
> To me, the question is: is there a good reason NOT to have
> a single document, i.e., are the requirements sets you're seeing
> so much different from each other (which didn't seem to be true
> based on the presentations in SLC) or is it just the document
> ownership/authorship problem? Can't you guys just get along? ;))
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
-- Mobile: +46 73 029 8019 Office: +46 920 49 3030http://www.bethepeople.com/vaccine_rides/events_vacc_eu.htm Rider: Avri Doria Rider #: 1338
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT