Re: [clouds] CloudApps BoF (IETF-80) proposal for your review andcomments

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Mon, 31 January 2011 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C363A6C8F for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:36:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.396, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ygzc1aLj-fq6 for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:36:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED703A6ABE for <>; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:36:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from S73602b ([]) by (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LjqxF-1QLHA22Z4L-00cE6y; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:39:18 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <>
To: "Vishwas Manral" <>, "Peter Saint-Andre" <>
References: <><> <>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:39:13 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:MrFRiudmjh7pEFH9f/TeTVAsMOmNz4Vbga8ROwwrTaK Ea25ch7Kh02YbXN9Z5lmpIta+/1vnj+GI2pCiQ3PfXye81FN43 mwBR0eEzoflKF/U5WzvLPUbNrYx9uqDPNYIiBsFJmWSMjTyrCH nTcfnWzBOx+Vu1O/LxFn4Bi+AWABxN00HTp79omQx1m0bh0Y7b rWIi4Rd0kWD8gdUlT5I9aHI4cx51vQiZg0mirjl71g=
Subject: Re: [clouds] CloudApps BoF (IETF-80) proposal for your review andcomments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:36:06 -0000


> Hi Peter,
> I would not totally agree. For nearly every new protocol developed,
> that I have worked on there has been seperate  requirement documents,
> use cases as well as protocol extension documents

While I would not dream of identifying the person who said it, I was told at 
IETF 51 in London that the reason so many groups were being chartered to 
produce use cases and requirements documents was to slow groups of new IETF 
participants down long enough for leadership to figure out what on earth 
they were talking about :p

I agree with Peter that IETF does less use cases/requirements work than most 
SDOs. My suggestion is that you may need to do this work, in this specific 
case, but do as little as possible.