Benson, I apologize if I’m way off base here, but it seems to me that the first task that the working group took on is unfinished. The IETF doesn’t normally charter WGs to generate I-D’s, normally the task is to generate RFCs. And of course the probability of the WG generating an RFC on its second charter, is probably equal to the WGs ability to generate RFC’s on its first.
Carter > On Feb 5, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Carter. Thanks for your feedback. I have some comments inline below. > > I'd also like to encourage all other contributors to provide feedback over > the next week. > > Carter Bullard wrote: >> I cannot agree with this line of thinking. Of course there is benefit in >> having the requirements documented regardless if there are ever any >> solutions delivered. And how can solutions be successfully developed, >> tested and verified without a published requirements document ?? > > To be clear, the requirements are already published as I-D documents. The > question is if and when to publish them as RFC documents. > > I don't believe anybody is waiting for the requirements to be published as > RFC documents before submitting solutions. If I'm wrong about that I'd > appreciate specific feedback on that. > >> There are many processes available for modifying the document after >> publication. >> Many people have put in effort. Finish this phase, get something >> successful out of the process and then move on to phase 2. > > We are already in "phase 2" as of our rechartering in late 2014. The WG is > currently encouraged (indeed required) to produce solutions for NVO3 > overlays. Publishing the requirements documents is not a requirement of our > current charter. > > That being said, I do acknowledge that many people have worked on the > requirements documents, and I plan to make sure they get appropriate credit > in the end. That's not really an issue here, as far as I'm concerned. > > As a chair, for me the only salient question is how to make sure that NVO3 > produces good and useful protocol specifications. If you have thoughts > specifically on how this question applies to the requirements drafts then I'd > appreciate additional feedback. > > Cheers, > -Benson > > >> On Jan 31, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Benson Schliesser <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> Dear NVO3 Contributors - >>> >>> As mentioned during the virtual interim meeting last week, Matthew and >>> I have been discussing when to publish the various NVO3 requirements >>> documents. Our view is that there is no real value in publishing >>> requirements if we fail to also deliver solutions. Further, we expect >>> that the process of developing solutions will enhance our collective >>> understanding, and therefore put NVO3 in a better position to evaluate >>> whether the requirements documents are complete. >>> >>> Finally, in some cases it may not make sense to have requirements >>> documents that are separate from the solution. In other words, it is >>> possible that the requirements may simply be a section of a solution >>> document. This would need to be evaluated after we have a more firm >>> idea of what the solution documentation might look like. >>> >>> Thus, it is our proposal that we should update the milestones to >>> reflect that the requirements will be published at the same time as >>> the solutions. We welcome any feedback on this proposal within the >>> next two weeks. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -Benson & Matthew >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nvo3 mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >>> > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
