Re: [DMM] Call for WG Adoption of a "current practices and gap analysis" document

[Konstantinos Pentikousis <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jouni & Julien,

  |[1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02
  |[2] draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01

After going through the two drafts, I think that [2] is in much better shape as it stands now to form the _basis_ for a WG document, as it includes a gap analysis that is more sober, technical, and concise than [1].

I find sec. 2 in [1] useful and better written than the rest of the document, but I'm not in favor of a WG draft that looks into dozens of approaches and extensions which, due to space concerns, can only stay at a very high level of detail. I would imagine that a journal publication is a more suitable venue for this type of work. As it stands now, the core part of [1] (i.e. gap analysis, sec. 3) is quite repetitive (at times, of the copy+paste variant), and runs for several pages which need editing for language and content. Finally, it appears that based on the Table in section 4.1 (p. 22) of [1], we're kind of done in DMM: LMA RA (and some salt :) fulfills all REQs.

Best regards,

Kostas