IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nmrg] [Anima] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 24 June 2014 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539941A854B for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9wvuGnh9qRju for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x232.google.com (mail-pb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CB471A03E8 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id rp16so669488pbb.37 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=upK/BlFINC7Mc/Q1hzFvErAW6qQqXcspio1UHsTJ4Jc=; b=JC0b7xGgAUYaRJRoAN0TOV/TgqJ16obe/bqBUwuLxiMpoLzzHpAL7qsI8Sr6iJNPE6 nj+NGndsmZOPSx0WYKlmBueNp6Im5QyyYvrUDlB6i/weSDpLrtw/E8C2D8tF1HNRwRhi Eyv6I0a/PhbOsoCH8ziDBTKk0EDlN3v73D2vQudOQqYSqEnojBMySN3JA2O0fSNcKjGS dEGu0R2W7V6EBnNJwhIviZdQtZO32ZjhNBYaYxg1H2E1dQutDzAVyCs7AO3A7WYsttfq boNmGCZ6PgBJJ4KjziJ+myAS5OGY1qM6ULtsgk0xX4ZSXDQx8dZsDKDAOFAozUudhRDZ nSbQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.254.37 with SMTP id af5mr4437068pad.113.1403640342084; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (247.193.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.193.247]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bx5sm1712750pbd.69.2014.06.24.13.05.40 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53A9DA1A.6050600@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:05:46 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
References: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF21BCA03D@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF21BCA03D@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/bvACBvSioA8bL8ulY5NBKOnfd00
Cc: "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] [Anima] Updating draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list <nmrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/nmrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nmrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:05:44 -0000

Michael,

I think that's all reasonable; I will re-read the whole draft when you
circulate it to the co-authors.

...
> 3. Use case section. 
> In the same email (link above) I proposed some text for the use case section. But frankly, I think this is overtaken by the discussion we had on the list, and out of date. 
> We also want to drive this document to publication soon, so procedural issues such as how to report use cases should really not be there any more. 
> I suggest we just remove this section completely, since IMO it is not required for the document to be useful and complete. Thoughts? 

I agree. I think the use cases will be very valuable in confirming solution
requirements, but this topic doesn't really belong with the definitions.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email