RE: New Version Notification for draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00

["Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[e-mail]>]

Regarding #3 -

Do you think we can satisfy this requirement in the WG draft by adding a
section entitled "Requirements" and another section entitled "Use cases"
and follow the same type of structure as the CableLabs draft?  That way,
anyone interested in a short list of requirements could just go to the
Requirements section and immediately know what's required.  Then, the
task going forward is to always make sure that the rest of the document
is kept in sync with that section.

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:45 PM
To: Fred Baker (fred); Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Chris Donley; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Ralph Droms
(rdroms)
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for
draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00 

>From my perspective, there are several *possible* goals for the working
group CPE Router draft.
1. It must do no harm. It must not say things that would make it not
operate in a common consumer broadband environment. It also shouldn't
say things that are antithetical to behavior that a major industry group
is specifying for devices intended to meet the needs of its
constituency. Fortunately, I think the current WG draft is pretty good
on this front.
2. Encourage discussion and debate, to help us all hammer out some of
these issues before we put this equipment in the hands of the average
consumer. I'm pretty happy with where that's going.
3. Provide a meaningful document that can be used by the makers of
retail CPE Routers. Right now, I think the current WG draft provides
pretty good general guidance. But it's hard to read, and isn't done in a
way as to create testable requirements, or to make individual elements
easy to reference. The individual draft from CableLabs et al was very
readable and well-laid-out. It had enumerated requirements. The
requirements were concisely stated. And then it collected all the
requirements again at the end into an appendix. I might not have liked
or agreed with everything it said, but I was easily able to understand
what it was saying, and even why it was saying that. It was very easy
for me to note elements that I disagreed with and discuss them. I'm
really glad they submitted this informational individual contribution to
the WG, rather than just providing comments against the WG draft. 
4. Provide a meaningful document that can be used as a reference (within
other requirements documents or RFPs) by industry groups and companies
that source equipment. This again, requires readability and good
organization. There may be conflicting needs between goals 3 and 4. If
both are goals, then addressing these conflicting needs will be
important.
Barbara


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:55 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Chris Donley; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Ralph Droms
> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr- 
> use-cases-and-reqs-00
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> 
> > I really do not understand why this draft was authored especially 
> > since it's been one year since our IETF CPE Rtr doc has been around?
> 
> The implication I draw as working group chair is that the document you

> have written doesn't quite do it for Chris or his organization; if it 
> did, he would have no motivation to write one. The liaison from BBF 
> suggests that they also have concerns with the WG document - something

> we already knew from their previous communications.
> 
> This response makes me wonder whether we are ready to draw together a 
> working group document. I had hoped that we could have a f2f meeting 
> in Stockholm between the interested parties, but that clearly won't 
> happen. How would you suggest we proceed to consensus around a 
> document? "Use mine" is a non-answer in the circumstance.


*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from all computers. GA625