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

[Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>]

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