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

["Chris Donley" <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

We'd be amenable to that approach (combining the documents, if
possible).

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:04 PM
To: Chris Donley
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); [e-mail]; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
draft-donley-ipv6-cpe-rtr-use-cases-and-reqs-00

Chris,

On 2009-07-23 11:03, Chris Donley wrote:
> Hemant,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.  
> 
> One of the issues that we have with the v6ops CPE Router draft is that
> it is hard to tell what is base functionality, what is optional, and
> what is architecture-dependent.  We present our draft to the working
> group as a complement to the v6ops CPE Router draft to detail our use
> cases, architectural assumptions, and requirements. While this draft
is
> specific to our needs, we believe that most of our draft is applicable
> to the wider community, and that a final document should address the
use
> cases and requirements of the wider community; we don't presume to
speak
> for the Broadband Forum or other groups, and encourage them to share
> their use cases/requirements, as well. 
> 
> As you suggested, there is a significant degree of overlap between our
> respective drafts.  That is intentional.  We tried to align as much as
> possible to avoid confusion. 

But I'm afraid that's impossible. Two overlapping documents = confusion,
by definition. I think the only reasonable goal is a combined document,
or possibly two complementary documents.

It's very encouraging to see use-case driven work in this area of
course.
It would be well worth while the effort of integrating the two drafts.

    brian