Re: [Coin] Last Call for the use case draft

["Kunze, Ike" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

> On 28. Nov 2023, at 09:33, Dirk Trossen <[e-mail]> wrote: 
> On 27. Nov 2023, at 16:39, David R. Oran <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> As a general comment I don’t think the sections with requirements language add much of anything and could be eliminated without sacrificing the key points of the use case document. I also have a nebulous concern about how the use of requirements language in a research oriented informational RFC might be perceived by the IESG and others. I don’t feel strongly about this though - there may be benefits I’m not seeing to being explicit about normative requirements for use cases.
> [IK] You have a good point and I think this is also partially captured by the fact that we have dropped the requirements from the current "use case analysis”, soon-to-be “Research Challenges” draft.
> Our original intention was to make the use cases as concrete as possible so that anyone aiming to build solutions for the use cases could have some specific properties to check against.
> However, I do see that this intention might not come across as we intended it and for some use cases, the requirements are rather vague or general (see your comment to 4.2.5.)
> Personally, I do not have a strong opinion on this, either, so I would be open for dropping the requirements.
> [DOT] I do agree that using requirements language (and the term requirements) is too strong and it has remained from previous iterations where it was geared towards outlining a ‘COIN system’. But I find dropping it too strong. Maybe we could (a) tone down the language, which can be achieved by removing the capital letters language and (b) maybe rename the ‘requirements’ into ‘desirable capabilities’ (for a COIN system)?

[IK] I like this suggestion and given that there do not seem to be other opinions on this matter, I would be in favor of giving this a shot.
Does this work for you, Dave?

Cheers,
Ike