[nmrg] IBN use cases: follow-up

Jérôme François <jerome.francois@inria.fr> Sat, 05 March 2022 21:03 UTC

Message-ID: <56da8589-d448-959c-f53a-f1c880e05fbf@inria.fr>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 22:03:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 Thunderbird/91.5.0
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgRnJhbsOnb2lz?= <jerome.francois@inria.fr>
To: "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: "nmrg-chairs@irtf.org" <nmrg-chairs@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/K-JZimNvMlcyDjDXeam7gbrFZ-w>
Subject: [nmrg] IBN use cases: follow-up
Precedence: list

Hi,

In January NMRG interim meeting, we discussed the different proposed IBN use cases.

1) An important question was whether NMRG should produce a single or multiple 
documents (Q1).

A single document will help in having the same level of details of use case and an 
integrated analysis. For visibility and impact, it is probably better as a 
non-NMRG members would get all info in a single doc.
Having multiple documents allows each use case to progress on its own pace but 
would require an additional common document that analyze/compare the different use 
cases.

Please let us know your opinion using the following form (you can add a comment) 
by March 16.
https://evento.renater.fr/survey/nmrg-ibn-use-cases-0qt1tf39?lang=en

2) We would like also to emphasize the first goal of adopting a draft as a group 
document is not to publish RFC but to support our collective work on a particular 
topic. Hence, independently of the choice (single or multiple documents), other 
publication types are possible when the work will be mature enough (for example 
white paper, article in a journal)

3) Note that if we adopt several use case documents, it does not prevent to merge 
them into a single one later.

4) At IETF 113, no in-depth discussions about IBN use cases is planned. It is 
still possible to organize a side meeting. In the poll (link provided above), 
please let us know if you'll be interested in participating.

5) There are two other questions we would like to have you feedback:

Q2 : without freezing a unique document structure, RG chairs suggest any IBN use 
case draft should include the following:
     a) examples and format of the intent(s) that is (are) proposed
     b) How are this or these intents classified according to the taxonomy 
proposed in classification draft
     c) the functional elements necessary to realize the proposed use case

Q3 : theory / practice cursor : how far do we want / can go on the validation of 
use cases such as implementations and proof of concepts, running code, 
interconnection/integration of use case implementations, hackathon projects, etc.


Best regards
Jérôme and Laurent
NMRG co-chairs

[nmrg] IBN use cases: follow-up Jérôme François
Re: [nmrg] IBN use cases: follow-up Jérôme François