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

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
I also see value in having two different documents.
Yours
Daniel

On Mar 19, 2017 21:33, "Xialiang (Frank)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I see these two drafts have their respective values, and prefer to keeping
> them separate.
>
> Thanks!
>
> B.R.
> Frank
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Flemming Andreasen
> 发送时间: 2017年3月17日 22:01
> 收件人: Roman Danyliw; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
>
> I think both are valuable and prefer keeping them separate.
>
> -- Flemming
>
> On 3/16/17 4:47 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> > Hello all!
> >
> > Any additional opinions on how to handle the WG requirements and use
> case drafts?
> >
> > Roman
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ehud Doron
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:14 AM
> >> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <[e-mail]>;
> >> [e-mail]; Mortensen, Andrew
> >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
> >>
> >> All
> >>
> >> +1 on that, I prefer to keep them separate.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Ehud
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tirumaleswar
> >> Reddy (tireddy)
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:08 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]; Mortensen, Andrew
> >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
> >>
> >> I prefer to keep them separate.
> >>
> >> -Tiru
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:37 PM
> >>> To: Mortensen, Andrew <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >>> 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:[e-mail]] De la part de Mortensen,
> >>>> Andrew Envoyé : lundi 27 février 2017 19:43 À : [e-mail] 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
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Dots mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Dots mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Dots mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
>