IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA711128B44 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:07:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L0y9XaJx-FLP for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D0BB1289B0 for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:07:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0E84120486; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:07:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.2]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D142D1C007D; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:07:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:07:22 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Mortensen, Andrew" <amortensen@arbor.net>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: merging requirements and use cases drafts?
Thread-Index: AQHSkSlHPjfCqL/HTUaPO9bSB5JdCKF+D3eQ
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:07:21 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E1989A@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CE7B264D-CAC1-41DF-8650-702E120BFBF9@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <CE7B264D-CAC1-41DF-8650-702E120BFBF9@arbor.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/6K3l0UGj0TfBwtLNo9cRAua5nkY>
Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:07:26 -0000

Hi Andrew, all, 

I have an alternate proposal: 
* Maintain the requirements draft with its initial scope.
* Abandon the use cases draft. 

I don't see much value in publishing the use case I-D as an RFC. The requirements I-D is really important as it sketches the scope and required DOTS functionalities. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Mortensen, Andrew
> Envoyé : lundi 27 février 2017 19:43
> À : dots@ietf.org
> Objet : [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
> 
> During the interim meeting, Kathleen Moriarty observed that it might be
> beneficial to merge the requirements and use cases drafts, since the IESG
> tends to look more favorably on such drafts.
> 
> We did not continue that discussion during the interim meeting, due to
> limited time, but I think it’s something we need to discuss ahead of the
> meeting in Chicago. To begin with, I’d like to hear a little more from
> Kathleen about why a merged draft is likely to be more palatable to the
> IESG. If nothing else, it’d be nice to avoid coming to the topic cold in
> Chicago.
> 
> andrew
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email