Re: [Dime] Proposed REQ 35 Text

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lionel,

On Mar 27, 2013, at 9:55 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

> Hi,
>  
> Following the discussion in the meeting, here is my interpretation.
> I said during the meeting that a new application will only be able to go through existing relay and redirect agent and not through "legacy" proxies i.e. proxies not supporting/advertising the new application.
>  
> So the question is simple: in the requirement elaboration phase, are we sure that any solution based on a new App-id will be rejected?
>  
> If not: the "SHOULD" is meaningful in REQ35.
> If yes: this is a strong requirement and this must be stated somewhere in the draft.

For the record, the piggy-backed solution currently proposed also does not meet REQ35.

We don't necessarily try to prove feasibility in advance for all requirements. I'm not sure what the work group approach would be in handling a MUST level requirement that turns out to be infeasible. I suspect it would be to merely notate that we couldn't come up with a reasonable way to meet the requirement and move on. Making it a MUST means we need to try hard, though, and look for alternatives if none of our proposals meet it.

I'm also not convinced a MUST here automatically disallows an application-based approach. Other applications have to deal with relays that return just the relay app ID in the capabilities exchange. We also mentioned the possibility of a separate mechanism to handle the non-adjacent case.