Ian Cooper wrote:
[First, some thoughts on the end of his message, where the action
items are. Then a few comments on the rest.]
> OK, so those are my concerns, here's my proposal:
> ...
> C) We get some real focus on the requirements/guidelines document
> between now and mid-January. This work item is our #1 consideration
> until that time.
>
> C.1) Folks interested in protocol work continue to work on personal
> I-Ds
>
> C.2) We try to make sure that WEBI and CDI know where the boundary
> is and try to make sure we do develop one thing, but not two similar
> things (unless that's really the appropriate thing to do)
>
> D) Around mid-January we move protocol work to be our #1
> consideration, while striving to get the requirements/guidelines
> document completed ASAP.
>
>
> Thoughts? (I tend not to make assumptions, so I'll take silence as
> total lack of interest and an indication we should close the group.)
>
To try to make this a bit more concrete, we should identify what
readers of this list should be focusing on at any given time. And we
should identify individuals do organize each phase of the dicussion
drive it towards closure by the relevant date.
E.g., for completing the recommendations doc...
now-Jan 15: *Everyone* should read the current recommendations draft
and raise any "signficant issues" that are not
addressed (or improperly addressed) in the current
draft
*TBD* will drive this discussion and develop a summary of
the points raised (Volunteer needed!)
*Authors* of recommendation draft will send "low-level"
comments to Ian by Jan 15
?Feb 1? *Ian (?)* will complete draft of recommendations document
*Ian (?)* will post schedule for completing recommendations
{Ian, have you volunteered for this? (Thanks, if so!) I
am making up a date rather than leaving it blank -- if
this is the wrong date, fill in the right one.)
[A few more comments, mostly just agreement with Ian's points, below.]
> --On Thursday, December 13, 2001 17:55 -0600 Mike Dahlin
<dahlin@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
...
> >
> >
> > To meet this goal, we need to meet the following sub-goals:
> >
> > Sub-goal: "Last call" RUP requirements document complete by March
> > IETF meeting
> >
> > Note: this will not happen if we wait for a "flurry of
> > activity" in early March, so...
> >
> > sub-sub-goal: revised draft (fixing all "internal inconsistency
> > details" such as definition of terms) posted to group by
> > mid-January
> >
> > sub-sub-goal: assemble list of "significant open questions"
> > from mailing list by late January/early February
> >
> Yep. But it's probably worth also pointing out that these two goals
> (and the following one) are not necessarily to be considered in
> sequence. If there are already significant open questions then it
> would be worth having them sooner rather than later, even if we
> don't get around to considering them for the mid-January milestone
> (it might be possible to resolve *some* of them).
Absolutely. We need to start assembling the list of outstanding issues
ASAP (e.g., start in early January).
>
> I've been a busy little bee while in SLC this week, and one of the
> really useful suggestions (thanks to Ned Freed and Joe Touch and
> others) is that we rename the "requirements" document to be a
> "guidelines" document. We have collected a lot of good issues in
> the text but I heed the warnings I've received of the potential for
> future problems if we end up with requirements that have not been
> met. Group consensus should be sufficient to resolve any issues of
> that nature in the future.
>
Yes. This makes much more sense.
> > ...
>
> I've been doing a lot of thinking on this issue this week.
>
> My concerns:
>
> 1) Folks may be so involved in the fun protocol stuff that it's
> difficult to get resolution on issues in the requirements/guidelines
> document
>
> 2) Addressing point #2 in David Martin's email regarding discussion
> at the lunch BoF, it's possible that there may be some minor
> additions that we might want to capture and understand before
> getting too far involved in protocol work
>
Both points well taken. It sounds like there is a general consensus
that we can/should get the guidelines work "done enough" by (1)
creating urgency by giving ourselves a near deadline and (2) setting
specific times for specific focused discussions (e.g., "January's goal
is to identify any major missing/outstanding issues").
> ...
-mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:23:00 MST