Re: [Detnet] [Gen-art] Preliminary Qs for Genart review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

On 24 Sep 2018, at 15:26, Lou Berger wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
>     It's a reasonable question.  I think the document serves a 
> number of purposes:
>
> - It has been the document that has been guiding the scope of the 
> solutions being worked in the WG this is the one that I think you are 
> keying off of.
>
> - It also serves a long lived purpose to help those learning / new-to 
> detnet,  to understand the types of applications that can be 
> supported by DetNet. Again this is about DetNet scope, but learning 
> about it in the future rather defining it now.
>
> - The final value I think about (I'm sure others have their own 
> list)  is that it allows those WG contributors who are users ensure 
> that their concerns are addressed by the WG.  For them, this document 
> covers both their contribution and provides a long term reference to 
> the problems they expect to be served by the technology, both in the 
> short term deliverables and as the technology evolves in the future.
>
> If you think the Shepherd write up needs to say more, I'm very open to 
> suggestions.

Actually, better than just saying these things in the shepherd writeup, 
I think it's worth saying in the intro of the document. I'll make sure 
that's in my editorial comments in the review.

Thanks to you and others for the explanations.

pr

> On 9/24/2018 11:43 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> Hi Lou,
>>
>> I've got a preliminary question about draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases 
>> that
>> isn't answered in the intro to the document or in your shepherd 
>> writeup.
>> I've Cced the WG just to make sure they're in the loop, and I've Cced
>> the gen-art list and the responsible AD just in case Deborah or any 
>> of
>> my Genart colleagues wish to say, "Pete, stop worrying your pretty
>> little head and go finish your Genart review!" And I swear, I'm not
>> asking this just to delay having to read 79 pages. (OK, maybe a 
>> little.)
>>
>> What's the motivation behind publishing this document? From the 
>> intro,
>> it looks like it's purpose was to document the use cases so that the 
>> WG
>> could do its work. Is there a reason that it needs to be published 
>> for
>> posterity? Will people in the future need to reference this document? 
>> It
>> would help me to review the document if I understood why it is being
>> published instead of simply being a tool that the WG used and now no
>> longer needs.
>>
>> I promise, in the meanwhile I'll continue to read the document and 
>> get
>> the rest of my review finished, but I'd like to understand more about
>> the purpose of the document.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> pr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>>