Tom, On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:20:17PM +0000, t.petch wrote: > It seems a shame that use cases comes last, since, as Alia said > recently, > > "If you were to look at our charter, unsurprisingly we have use-cases to > be > completed before information models. I would strongly encourage > discussion > of the use-case drafts and serious work on turning them into something > that > the working group could accept." > > My own take is to wait for use cases to progress before taking a serious > interest in, e.g., architecture and info model.
As I've been coming up to speed on the documents in the work group and the mail archives, the use cases vary from very well discussed to very light discussion. The ones that have received good discussion also tend to have related info model documents. Since I've been digesting the use case documents in bulk, it's pretty clear that a number of common requirements can be extracted from them. Thus, where the documents appear to be in terms of maturity is some need of editing and refinement to attempt to make those common requirements explicitly visible across the document set. Much of that work is for the mailing list. Some of the use cases are a bit more novel in terms of the likely fallout of their requirements and deserve more group discussion. In terms of simply keeping the WG pipeline full, it's definitely time to start spending some cycles on data model language and protocol. While it's certainly possible that as the use case documents are refined that they'll reveal additional requirements, my hope is that they're not disruptive discoveries. Clearly it's a finish-to-finish dependency relationship. Meanwhile, I'm sure the use case authors would appreciate as much help as we can give them to drive the documents to completion. :-) -- Jeff (not currenty speaking as a chair, just someone who's done some amount of project management) _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
