--On Tuesday, December 11, 2001 20:36 -0800 Dan Li <lidan@cisco.com> wrote:
> At 06:04 PM 12/11/01 -0700, Ian Cooper wrote:
>
>> I think we'd also be crazy to assume that interactions with CDI are
>> resolved, but that's mostly something that can be resolved in the shorter
>> term.
>
> If you read Lisa A.'s latest draft, it's very clear the relationship of
> the two, how RUP is expected to be used for CDI signaling, how
> fields/semantics map between CDI and RUP, and what CDI specific things
> CDI will define as opaque RUP options. I don't see what's left to resolve.
The relationship is clear, yes. Suggestions that the two groups are using
different terms for the same entities have me concerned. Lisa's draft also
outlines aspects that are not covered by the current RUP requirements and I
would like to see at least some discussion as to whether they belong in RUP
or not. "No" is equally as good as "yes"; I want to see the group decide
on its answer, that's all. (I realize we've addressed at least one of
those aspects as "no" already [metadata update]; it may at least be worth
considering how this might be added to a RUP protocol in the future so that
we have some idea of how WEBI's RUP work corresponds to CDI's work. Ending
up defining two protocols that are essentially the same seems like a waste
of time to me.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:23:00 MST