Sheng Jiang <shengji...@bupt.edu.cn> wrote:
> I actually agree your observation on the supportiveness of use case
> section. We were discussing to move use cases section into
> appendix. Overall, use cases here are not necessary or as a MUST. What
> we should focus on is the validity of technical requirements on Section
> 4. If yes, infrastructure would be used when it is ready and good
> enough to be used.1) The use cases motivate doing the work. 2) The use cases tell us something about the threat/risk/benefit of the environment, and inform the reviewer what assumptions have been made. So moving them into an appendix just makes it harder to understand what problem you are trying to solve. It also obscures that some of the use cases are not really credible. Instead, I suggest: a) pick a specific use case (firmware update?) and implement it. b) talk about that implementation, and see if any of the proposed other users are interested in the solution. Otherwise, my advice to the chairs is that there is no audience for this innovation, and we should not go through the expense/effort of publishing it. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
