Dave, Apologies for taking some time to respond, please see below.
On 19 Apr 2011, at 18:22, Mcdysan, David E wrote: > On Tuesday4/19/11 12:43 PM, "Ben Niven-Jenkins" <[email protected]> >>> I agree with Rich that the use case/ requirements is separable from the >>> protocol specifics. >>> >>> Ben, would separating these address what appears to be one of your major >>> comments? >> >> Yes. I would prefer ALTO WG to focus on: >> - What information an ALTO server needs from the network to do its job >> (which may differ by use case). >> - What an ALTO server may want (or be required) to do with that >> information >> >>> I suggest that we first focus on the requirements and where that work is >>> best chartered. >>> >> >> Did you mean to insert a 'not' to make 'and not where that work is >> chartered'? If so, then I'd say that is a fine suggestion and one I >> heartily agree with :-) > > Sorry, the following is what I had in mind, with CHANGES IN ALL CAPS. > > I suggest that THE ALTO WG first focus on the requirements and THEN AS A > NEXT STEP (E.G., A SEPARATE DRAFT) DETERMINE where ANY NEEDED > INFORMATIONAL, BCP OR PROTOCOL work AS DETERMINED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS > ANALYSIS WOULD best BE chartered. Agreed - I think we're on the same page :-) The first step (IMO) is definitely to start by focussing on requirements and determining which place is best to do any follow-on work can wait until after we have the requirements. Ben _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
