Re: [Srcomp] Draft Minutes Jan 20 2021

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 9:00 PM
To: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=[e-mail]<mailto:ddukes=[e-mail]>>; srcomp <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>

From: Darren Dukes \(ddukes\)<mailto:ddukes=[e-mail]>
Date: 2021-01-21 10:05
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[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.
     *