Hi Lou,
On 10/09/2015 14:45, Lou Berger wrote:
Tom,
On 9/10/2015 8:52 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
The desire from the co-chairs and AD anyways, is that we do not start a
requirements draft
as a result of today’s meeting (and mailing list confirmation of the outcome).
As Kent mentioned earlier
in this thread, to document this list of detailed requirements on the mailing
list. The motivation for this
versus a draft, is that waiting for a draft to completely is a drag on
progress, and we don’t want to
gate or slow things down. Putting them in a place different from the existing
draft also helps with
the perceptional issues that were raised earlier.
—Tom
This works as long as we break this seemingly endless requirements
discussion cycle that keeps coming up when try to discuss solutions.
>From my perspective we already have documented operator requirements
that seem to have at least have 'rough' consensus. Namely:
draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01: Sections 3, 4, 5.
I was only reading sections 3 and 4 as listing requirements, and section
5 as the preamble to a proposed solution.
Can you please clarify?
Thanks,
Rob
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
