RE: [Seamoby] CAR Discovery Requirements

Hi Hesham and Trossen,

We seem to dance around in abstract space a lot in this WG.  Isn't it time
to get down to brass tacks?  MIP has an implied architecture and it is not
going away.  Neither are many of the MANET protocols.  What ever happened
to the "running code" idea anyway?  I don't see why we have to be so
very vague (which is occuring strictly to be pedantic about requirement-
speak).  There is an old adage that states if its not "testable" its not
a requirement.  This WG seems to have adopted the opposite approach, i.e.
if its "testable" it can't be a requirement because it isn't vague enough.

Best regards,

Phil
****************************************************************************
This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above and may contain
confidential, proprietary or privileged information. If you are not the
named addressee or the person responsible for delivering the message to the
named addressee, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the
e-mail and destroy any printed copy. The contents should not be disclosed to
anyone and no copies should be made. We take reasonable precautions to
ensure that our emails are virus free. However we accept no responsibility
for any virus transmitted by us and recommend that you subject any incoming
e-mail to your own virus checking procedures. 

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