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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,

     It's a reasonable question.  I think the document serves a number 
of purposes:

- It has been the document that has been guiding the scope of the 
solutions being worked in the WG this is the one that I think you are 
keying off of.

- It also serves a long lived purpose to help those learning / new-to 
detnet,  to understand the types of applications that can be supported 
by DetNet. Again this is about DetNet scope, but learning about it in 
the future rather defining it now.

- The final value I think about (I'm sure others have their own list)  
is that it allows those WG contributors who are users ensure that their 
concerns are addressed by the WG.  For them, this document covers both 
their contribution and provides a long term reference to the problems 
they expect to be served by the technology, both in the short term 
deliverables and as the technology evolves in the future.

If you think the Shepherd write up needs to say more, I'm very open to 
suggestions.

Thanks,

Lou

On 9/24/2018 11:43 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>