[Srcomp] 答复: FW: Another lost requirement

[Weiqiang Cheng <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your reminder.

Let’s discuss it this week.

 

B.R.

Weiqiang Cheng

 

发件人: Srcomp [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Ron Bonica
发送时间: 2021年1月8日 02:47
收件人: [e-mail]
主题: [Srcomp] FW: Another lost requirement

 

Weiqiang,

 

Can we add this requirement to the agenda. I believe that it was dropped due
to administrative error, not group consensus.

 

 
Ron

 

 

 

Juniper Business Use Only

From: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 12:25 PM
To: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Another lost requirement

 

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

 

Darren,

 

We want this to be a requirement during our analysis phase. Otherwise, we
might send a solution to the WG/IESG, only to have it ruled out because it
violates an existing PS/BCP.

 

                                      Ron

 

 

 

Juniper Business Use Only

From: Srcomp <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes)
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 6:58 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Srcomp] Another lost requirement

 

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

 

Is this not redundant with the process of WG, ietf and iesg review?

 

Darren

 

  _____  

From: Srcomp <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ron Bonica
<rbonica=[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:27:06 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Srcomp] Another lost requirement 

 

Folks,

 

We once had a requirement that said the compression mechanism must not
violate any existing PS or BCP document. I don’t see that in version 02 of
the draft or in the parking lot.

 

Did we drop another requirement?

 

                                           Ron

 

 

Juniper Business Use Only