Re: [Gen-art] [Detnet] Preliminary Qs for Genart review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases

please ignore this message

Sent from HUAWEI AnyOffice
From:Hesham ElBakoury
To:eagros@dolby.com,resnick@episteme.net,draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases.shepherd@ietf.org
Cc:gen-art@ietf.org,detnet@ietf.org,db3546@att.com
Date:2018-09-24 20:32:06
Subject:Re: [Detnet] Preliminary Qs for Genart review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases

where else it can be standardized besides IETF ?

Sent from HUAWEI AnyOffice
From:Grossman, Ethan A.
To:Pete Resnick,draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases.shepherd@ietf.org
Cc:gen-art@ietf.org,detnet@ietf.org,Deborah Brungard
Date:2018-09-24 19:31:40
Subject:Re: [Detnet] Preliminary Qs for Genart review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases

Hi Pete,

My observation is that the DetNet WG made a decision to not have a "Requirements" draft, instead casting the Use Cases draft in that role, but in a more flexible way, i.e. the design is intended to achieve as much as can be achieved toward the "requirements" (the "least common denominator features" of those asked for in the collection of use cases) given a "reasonable" technology solution.

Thus as the DetNet design progressed, based on that model, certain features that were originally asked for in the Use Cases were eventually dropped from the Use Cases (and thus from the expectations of DetNet) when it was established that these features were not feasible given the sort of solution that we could create within the scope of DetNet (for example "it should work on the open Internet" was dropped).

I would claim that this role would justify publication, however that's just my $0.02.

Best,
Ethan (as editor of the Use Cases draft)

-----Original Message-----
From: detnet <detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Pete Resnick
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 8:44 AM
To: draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases.shepherd@ietf.org
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; detnet@ietf.org; Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>
Subject: [Detnet] Preliminary Qs for Genart review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases

Hi Lou,

I've got a preliminary question about draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases that isn't answered in the intro to the document or in your shepherd writeup.
I've Cced the WG just to make sure they're in the loop, and I've Cced the gen-art list and the responsible AD just in case Deborah or any of my Genart colleagues wish to say, "Pete, stop worrying your pretty little head and go finish your Genart review!" And I swear, I'm not asking this just to delay having to read 79 pages. (OK, maybe a little.)

What's the motivation behind publishing this document? From the intro, it looks like it's purpose was to document the use cases so that the WG could do its work. Is there a reason that it needs to be published for posterity? Will people in the future need to reference this document? It would help me to review the document if I understood why it is being published instead of simply being a tool that the WG used and now no longer needs.

I promise, in the meanwhile I'll continue to read the document and get the rest of my review finished, but I'd like to understand more about the purpose of the document.

Thanks,

pr

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

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