Jeff, I have been travelling and didnt have time to do this - but it helped me reflect a little more on the topic. I think it would be best to come up with some form of pseudo requirements first then do the analysis. I will work on a set of requirements for protocol then model and post them on the list. I will try to extract them from the differrent docs; some of what i put out will be a matter of opinion so i may get shot down but at least we would have one smell test for everyone.
cheers, jamal On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 06:43:33AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: >> So 54 emails later.... > [...] > And now I'm many beyond that... :-) > >> Andy, Dean and myself included presented based on our view of what the >> requirements are. >> There are no requirements spelt out anywhere. Why is this such a hard >> question to ask >> around an engineering forum? > > I have to agree that we're not converging on requirements in an explicit > form. > > What I do see is that we're covering implicit forms of the requirements by > discussing the proposed solutions and the issues with them. > > I'll remind all sides that I created wiki stubs for these to be documented. > In the absence of someone filling them in, I'll write down some of my own > observations early next week. > > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/i2rs/trac/wiki/ForcesAnalysis > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/i2rs/trac/wiki/NetconfYangAnalysis > > -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
