IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ehud Doron <EhudD@Radware.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <EhudD@Radware.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 633DE126D74 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:14:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 KMpUQFY3BFL6 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout1.radware.com (mailout1.radware.com [192.115.180.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B5741294C6 for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:14:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ILMB2.corp.radware.com ([169.254.2.155]) by ILCAS1.corp.radware.com ([176.200.120.121]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:14:09 +0200
From: Ehud Doron <EhudD@Radware.com>
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "Mortensen, Andrew" <amortensen@arbor.net>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: merging requirements and use cases drafts?
Thread-Index: AQHSkSlHPjfCqL/HTUaPO9bSB5JdCKF+D3eQgAARtRCAAAJBUA==
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:14:08 +0000
Message-ID: <E58182C4A35A8E498E553AD3D33FA00101171A327B@ILMB2.corp.radware.com>
References: <CE7B264D-CAC1-41DF-8650-702E120BFBF9@arbor.net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E1989A@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <ce1550b82eeb4250a12c1f09622cfd45@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <ce1550b82eeb4250a12c1f09622cfd45@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [176.200.120.205]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.4179-8.100.1062-22912.006
x-tm-as-result: No--21.840000-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/GGDNwJ1z_0BEzoUf_FzV6bwsU4Y>
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 09:14:16 -0000

All

+1 on that, I prefer to keep them separate.

Thanks, Ehud

-----Original Message-----
From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:08 AM
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Mortensen, Andrew <amortensen@arbor.net>; dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?

I prefer to keep them separate.

-Tiru
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:37 PM
> To: Mortensen, Andrew <amortensen@arbor.net>; dots@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email