Re: [Rats] Use case -> architecture document

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > As it stands, the use case document is not an architecture document,
    > but it could be shaped as such and I'd really like to see if we can do
    > that in short order to have a comparison prior to an adoption call.

As the primary author of the use case document, I can't see how the document
can be manipulated easily into an architecture document.  If I were to do so,
I'd wind up with a document that looks much like Henk's -02 document.

And I'm not sure I'm willing to do an architecture document "on my own"

Henk and I have had many discussions about these documents going back at
least 8 months.  What I am hearing is that some people prefer my lazy
Canadian use of imprecise language over Henk's precise, almost mathetical,
use of language.  Perhaps this is a case of "Only Nixon can go to China"...
  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_goes_to_China )
that is, only a native English speaker is allowed to be lazy and familiar
with language.  Any non-native speaker must be more precise.

Henk and I have agreed that I will help with the Architecture document.
We are in the process of setting up a time for a weekly work session.

So my ask is that we go to the end of IETF106 before we change direction.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [