IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)

"PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <pp3129@att.com> Mon, 17 May 2010 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <pp3129@att.com>
X-Original-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: e2md@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBCB28C0F3 for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.393
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.394, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zHc+X4ZMK-wx for <e2md@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2010 07:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE3A3A6A26 for <e2md@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 07:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: pp3129@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1274106165!32820600!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146]
Received: (qmail 23010 invoked from network); 17 May 2010 14:22:45 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-12.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 May 2010 14:22:45 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4HEMQav009045 for <e2md@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 10:22:27 -0400
Received: from gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com (gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com [135.53.26.15]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4HEMLX3008915 for <e2md@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2010 10:22:21 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 10:22:38 -0400
Message-ID: <35FE871E2B085542A35726420E29DA6B03F95813@gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1005171404110.16091@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)
Thread-Index: Acr1xFKNQ4yM6wo0TK+YD4hGImVBogABrAlA
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1005161433580.31324@softronics.hoeneisen.ch><32FCCBEC-E8B1-45D9-A068-0B120AAADC55@rfc1035.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1005171404110.16091@softronics.hoeneisen.ch>
From: "PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)" <pp3129@att.com>
To: "E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list" <e2md@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)
X-BeenThere: e2md@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "E.164 To MetaData \(E2MD\) BOF discussion list" <e2md.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/e2md>
List-Post: <mailto:e2md@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md>, <mailto:e2md-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:26:59 -0000

So I went through the RFCs which seemed to say, "You probably should use a new RR type if you're going to get too much data and it's not as bad getting new RRs as you think."

Naïve question: if we said we wanted a WG based on the assumption that we'll define new RR type(s) as needed would that settle the naysayers' hash?


I'll be happy to send some text for G-SPID separately


Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962
-----Original Message-----
From: e2md-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:e2md-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Hoeneisen
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:20 AM
To: Jim Reid
Cc: E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: [e2md] Problem statement, Requirements and Use Cases (was RFC 5507 & RFC 5395)

Hi Jim

On Mon, 17 May 2010, Jim Reid wrote:

> With that in mind, I make the following suggestion. Could whoever is in 
> charge of this BOF ask those who have use cases and requirements to submit 
> them and set a deadline for that input? If nothing is forthcoming, then there 
> isn't a problem to work on and we can all go home. And if we get that info, 
> there would at least be a basis for a problem statement that could then be 
> analysed and perhaps worked on.


About Problem statement:

Last week I sent out an email with Subject: "Action Required: Your version 
of the Problem statement needed", which pretty much covers this. As I have 
only seen a few answers, I maybe could send a reminder.


About Requirements:

A call for requirements sime weeks ago resulted in the following:
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/RequirementsList
   (AFAICR only Jay and Dean have been contributing so far.)


About Use Cases:

BTW: Long before the BoF I also publically asked for Use Cases, which 
is still the basis for the Use Cases we are discussing here. Details see 
E2MD archives.

Wiki page under construction:
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/UseCases


Wiki:

Here the list of links to the Wiki pages:

- Main E2MD Wiki Page:
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki

- Requirements:
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/RequirementsList

- Use Cases (under construction)
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/UseCases

- Objections (Ticketing System)
   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/report/10

I would wish the Wiki was more of a collaborative happening as opposed to 
one person doing all the work...


cheers,
  Bernie


_______________________________________________
e2md mailing list
e2md@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/e2md

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email