i can live with it either way, though i did state a
preference. i have trouble seeing requirements as a
standard. in fact even in the ietf requirements only
have the status of informational, which is not any
form of requirements status.
i think the exercise of trying to produce a common doc would
be productive. but i am willing to either keep working
groupb's doc or to work on a common contribution.
quite a sig you have.
and since i am in sweden, none of my days end in y
a.
Kastenholz, Frank wrote:
> I think it is proper and appropriate for the IRTF
> to produce several different requirements documents
> (or any other thing we do for that matter).
>
> My reasons are
> 1. If we were to produce a single document then
> it would be very close to being a "standard"
> (even though the name would not include those
> 8 letters). This means that our whole process
> would open up to the IETF's way of doing things.
> Those of you who have known me for a while
> know also that my opinion of "The IETF Process"
> is very low indeed.
>
> 2. No matter what the IRTF produces, the IETF will
> want to take it and play with it. They will change
> parts, add new stuff, delete old stuff, and so on.
> Whether the IRTF produces 1 or 100 requirements
> documents, the IETF _will_ change it. This is not
> unreasonable; after all it will then become _their_
> work...
>
> One could ask "Why not do this in the IRTF-RRG?". The
> answer is simple -- if we did it here then why does
> the IRTF-RRG exist? The answer is simple; the IRTF-RRG
> is here, really, to allow groups of like-minded people
> to form, do some interesting work, and gain review and
> so on from a wider group of people with similar interests.
> In other words, it is to allow several different groups
> to come up with their own views of what the requirements
> are for a new routing architecture (or whatever)
>
> 3. As the IETF did with IPNG, I would expect that they
> will solicit more input. See RFC1550 and then the
> responses (starting roughly at RFC1667). Multiple
> documents from the IRTF would simply be multiple
> solicited inputs.
>
>
> Frank Kastenholz
>
> ==================================================
> My preferrred signature is:
> This information is for the sole use of
> whoever receives it and may contain confusing,
> enlightening, enraging, entertaining,
> irritating, or just plain stupid information,
> including without limitation, double-secret-
> probation information belonging to [CENSORED
> BY THE NSA/FBI/MOUSE]. Any unauthorized review,
> use, disclosure, or distribution outside of an
> establishment serving alchohol is prohibited on
> days that do not end in Y.
> But our ******'d lawyers would rather have:
>
> =======================================
> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may
> contain confidential and privileged information, including without
> limitation, Confidential and/or Proprietary Information belonging to
> Unisphere Networks, Inc. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
> message.
>
>
>
-- 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 - 04:10:04 EDT