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

[kaname nishizuka <[e-mail]>]

I do agree that they have their own values each.
I also prefer keeping them separate.

thank you,
Kaname


On 2017/03/20 11:04, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi,
> I also see value in having two different documents.
> Yours
> Daniel
>
> On Mar 19, 2017 21:33, "Xialiang (Frank)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Ehud Doron
>     >> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:14 AM
>     >> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Mortensen, Andrew
>     >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Tirumaleswar
>     >> Reddy (tireddy)
>     >> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:08 AM
>     >> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Mortensen, Andrew
>     >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of
>     >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:37 PM
>     >>> To: Mortensen, Andrew <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>] De la part de Mortensen,
>     >>>> Andrew Envoyé : lundi 27 février 2017 19:43 À : [e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> Dots mailing list
>     >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Dots mailing list
>     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Dots mailing list
>     >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Dots mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Dots mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Dots mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots