Re: [Madinas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-madinas-use-cases-05.txt

["Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <[e-mail]>]

To be fully explicit on the changes and their intent:
The minutes from last meeting (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-115-madinas-202211101700/ ) indicate:


  *   Removing the requirements section (6.3) - done
  *   Changing the document name to "use cases and requirements" - done
  *   Explicitly listing the use cases - done
  *   There was also a request to move the section 7 to a BCP, and there were volunteers, but the document is not there yet (or I could not find it), so we kept that section where it was until a BCP is created.

As several participants suggested they would contribute to the mailer, I waited to the last minute before posting a changed version, to maximize the chances of input.

Jerome



From: Madinas <[e-mail]> on behalf of CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 1:55 PM
To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Madinas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-madinas-use-cases-05.txt
Hi Michael,

Regarding one of your points, please find below inline some comments.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:34 AM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

This might be a more useful diff, since I guess 04->05 is just a small
change.

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-madinas-use-cases-05&url1=draft-ietf-madinas-use-cases-03

The major difference I see is removal of REQ4 to REQ8.
I don't know why.

This is because it was agreed in the last meeting. From the minutes:

"Carlos Bernados (CB): Suggests removing the requiremetns to the WG, but
leaving the ones about identification."

The rationale behind this is that those requirements were related to what the WG had to do, not about the solutions. And this is not the scope of this document ("An Informational use cases and identity requirements document").

Thanks!

Carlos

But, I still don't think that this is a useful document as it is.
It also doesn't match our charter very well.

This is perhaps the third IETF where an update appears only hours before the
deadline and the changes are largely trivial.
The WG chairs need to establish some kind of recurring virtual interim
meeting, probably at least monthly, in order to make progress on the topics
involved.

I'm sorry to be so critical: I've tried being constructive and contributing,
but that doesn't seem to have helped.

I believe that this WG has failed.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*



--
Madinas mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/madinas