[Seamoby] RE: Differences in Requirements between AR and MN CAR discovery

Hi James,

> I understand, but I believe that Hesham, and perhaps some others, do
> think that
> there will be different requirements based on whether the MN or
> the ARs are doing the discovery.

With all due respect, James, but believing in differences won't
lead to any definition of requirements. I'm not saying that there
is no difference but I want to see it.

> 
> I agree that we need to have a clearer understanding of what the
> differences in requirements are. Perhaps those who think
> that there should be a difference can post specific requirements
> that they believe do differ (and please post under the above
> subject, so I can keep track of the thread). If we don't get a well
> articulated list of such requirements by the end of the requirements
> development
> period, then I think we can be justified in not separating them.

Thanks, that's exactly my point. All comments regarding separation
merely asked for separation without giving ANY concrete example.
But that's what I asked for. If we get a list of requirements that
indeed contains items that demand for a separation, we have to do 
this. But for that, we first need these items. I'm simply kind
of confused why we discuss first the grouping of information, i.e.,
requirements, before we actually have the information that justify
this specific grouping. Maybe, another grouping would make much
more sense actually. I'd like to discuss this at the end not before.

So please, everybody who 'believes' that this separation makes
sense, send the specific requirement(s) to the list. We'll keep
track of them and present (hopefully) an appropriate ordered/
separated/grouped list of them at the end of the discussion. 
Right now, we're still at the list that was presented in SLC 
(with some proposals to change MUSTs and SHOULDs).

Regards,

Dirk

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby