On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 03:17:55PM +0000, t.petch wrote: > I find the use case documents a very mixed bag. [...] > 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 agree. I suspect one of the likely bits of post meeting work we'll have in front of us is coming to closure as to which use cases we'll adopt. This will have impact on the architecture documents, the info model documents, etc. > 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. A general unfortunate truth within the IETF is that until we have something that we can put on the wire, many parties will not be interested in helping with the work. Getting to that point means that we must have our architecture together, the use cases and info models cleear *enough*. Development (the running code after the rough consensus) is what tends to drive out the bugs and bad assumptions we have in our higher level specs. In any case, I agree with your sentiment: We need to come to some closure on existing work items in order to help drive the work forward. (And our AD would be happy to see the same. :-) -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
