----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Haas" <[email protected]> To: "t.petch" <[email protected]> Cc: "Edward Crabbe" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:32 PM > 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 I find the use case documents a very mixed bag. I note that the rib info model cites the white and hares use case I-Ds, which suggests to me that they should be adopted by the WG (or else dropped:-( I note that the mbb usecases, which I find the most persuasive, regards the info model as inadequate, which, again, says to me this should either be a WG document, or else declared out of scope for the info model at this time. Discussions last year seemed to stall at times over what the use cases should be and I would find it hard to know whether or not the info model was adequate without knowing what the use cases were. So I think that the WG needs a view on which of the many use case I-Ds is relevant to the current work. I find the protocol issues less pressing, perhaps because the IETF has been round that block so many times before. The genesis of e.g. PCEP seemed a relatively straghtforward birth, compared to, say, the data modelling work of e.g. netmod or, delving into the past, SMI. Tom Petch > -- 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
