[Ieprep] RE: draft-polk-ieprep-scenarios-00.txt

At 05:31 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, King, Kimberly  S. wrote:
>
>
>Are you advising me to take all the authorization and requirements out
>of
>the next version of this ID?
>
>
>No.  I think as much as possible, the requirements should be separated from
>this draft.  

I agree with this assessment (I'd like to see more of what I only started
to bring up in other IDs - one reason I chose to keep some of it in)

>The authorization issues are really important and need to be
>addressed.  I don't know if this is the place.  

Nor do I - but definitely somewhere explicit

>Maybe it would be cleaner to
>have a section with topologies followed by a section with issues related to
>topology.  

Ahhh - but where do I stop? If I put sections X.X.1 after each diagram and
move the text after each diagram into that new section to bring up issues -
each could get reeeeally big/long - cause I see lots of issues for each of
the 4 topologies that don't overlap

I can easily do what you ask with minimal effort. How do you want me to
address issues without mentioning where there should be an explicit (as in
"not implied only") requirement? Something to the effect of: blah blah blah
about an issue, then "there should be a requirement dealing this X
situation" (leaving a Req ID to write the actual Req with this ID as the
hint)? I'm not being smart(assed) about this, but am looking for guidance
on the wording (structure)

>
>It is very good to have a topology draft, sorry I didn't come across as more
>positive!

cheers,
James 

              *************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than 
                         they are willing to allow for others"

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep