Re: [e2md] Shall we go this way? (was Re: Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395))

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

(a few minutes before the call...)



On 5/26/2010 12:08 PM, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
> a) Do you also see this as a viable strategy?

On review the Use Cases file, I think it has 'useful' content but really does 
not provide 'use cases'.

I think of "uses cases" as starting with a description of a problem or activity 
that one wants to accomplish.  The current document seems to start with 
particular features to add.  Most of these do have a subordinate entry that 
cites a usage, but it's in passing, rather than as a focus.

To take an example from the current file, I'd expect a Use Case to say:

    Assist in better call routing

It would have a statement about the current call routing limitations or problems 
and discuss the kinds of things that would make call routing better.  For 
example, perhaps an organization has multiple VOIP gateways to the open 
Internet.  How does an inbound caller know which to route through.  (I'm 
fantasizing here; I've no idea if this is a real issue of concern to you folk.)

Only after all that might the use case start citing possible solution paths, 
such as parameters that need to be added to an (existing) ENUM record.



> b) Which timeframe do your believe is sensible (Maastricht or Beijing?)
>
> c) Who is willing to actively assist the work on an agreeable charter?

yes.  i enjoy charter bashing and believe that a well-draft charter sets the, 
ummm, course for the working group.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net