Re: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021

[程伟强 <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,

I think we39ve started the discussion regarding the analysis document through emails. Let39s go on.

The inputs from you, Jim and Cheng Li are very useful.

First step, let39s generate a list of candidate proposals within the design team.


Then, we can read over those proposals and have more discussions.

Cheng Li gave a summary of the list. What is your comments?

B.R.
Weiqiang Cheng


 
----邮件原文----发件人：Ron Bonica  <rbonica=[e-mail]>收件人："Chengli (Cheng Li)" <[e-mail]>,"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,"Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=[e-mail]>,srcomp  <[e-mail]>抄　送: (无)发送时间：2021-01-23 00:11:32主题：Re: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021
    

Folks,


 


I think that we agreed that our calls would be dedicated (100%) to the requirements document until it is done. However, we may exchange emails regarding the analysis document  before the requirements document is complete.


 


Does this work for everyone?


 


Personally, I will take some time for a close reading of the seven solution documents. Since many of us are co-authors of those drafts, I expect to see some clarifying questions  on those drafts.


 


                                                                       Ron


 


 


 


Juniper Business Use Only



From: Srcomp <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Chengli (Cheng Li) Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:21 PM To: [e-mail] Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=[e-mail]> srcomp <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021




 


[External Email. Be cautious of content]


 


Oh I just noticed the minutes. 


 


As we discussed, it may be better to finish the requirement document before getting started to analysis document, I think it is the same to the authorships. 


It may be inappropriate to assign the authors before writing a draft.


 


Regarding the requirements drafts, I agree with the existing order. Regarding the analysis document, it may be good to list the order based on their contributions.


 


Thanks,


Cheng


 


 


 



From: Srcomp [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 9:00 PM To: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=[e-mail]> srcomp <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021




 


 



I diagree that the author list of analysis doc will be the same with the requirement doc.



 



Chongfeng 



 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





[e-mail]





 




From: Darren  Dukes \(ddukes\)



Date: 2021-01-21 10:05



To: [e-mail]



Subject: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021





Attendees: Weiqiang, PSF, Cheng Li, Wim, Darren, Ron, Chongfeng


 


Minutes

Add members to requirements author list in the order they appear in contributor list.

Analysis doc will be same

Added Compression Levels text to next revision (Add “able to support” to text)

Security requirement

Delete “Security Requirements” from Backlog they are already handled in the draft.

Operational requirements

Not discussed, need closure

Resurrecting BCP or PS statement (previously posted) with this proposed text:

Description: The compression mechanism SHOULD not violate any proposed standard or BCP. If it does violate any PS or BCP it MUST  update the related document.

Rationale: Violation of existing standards makes the internet more fragile.

Metric: A solution that does not violate PS or BCP, or updates PS or BCP satisfies this requirement.

ACTION: Finalize text on the mailing list and conclude next week.

Candidate proposals

ACTION: Team to send proposals to srcomp – include the drafts or RFCs for analysis.