On 1/20/2006 6:09 PM, "John Merrells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 20-Jan-06, at 7:53 AM, Peter Davis wrote: > >> We should add to the 'In Scope' section: >> >> This working group shall include in it's output, informational >> material >> which results from the assessment of existing specifications, and >> limitations or omissions which requires the production of additional >> specification(s). >> >> Which, I suppose, implies another deliverable. > > I wonder if this is really necessary. If we write up the use cases as a > way of defining the problem and in a sense stating the requirements > of a solution.... > > ...and you're suggesting that we then document why existing > specifications > don't satisfy those requirements. Yes, that is what I am suggesting. There are several specifications from SDOs today (and several that are not), that solve for _some of_ the use cases we may establish here. If we've identified use cases which are not supported with present specifications, great... We've identified areas of focus. > > Hmm, I think we should think about it... but documenting it (and most > probably getting into some huge arguments) seems like a lot of work > to just justify what people are already doing anyway. It seems the responsible thing to do as well. Ignoring prior work in the space (and in some cases, significant peer and security reviews) does not serve any useful purpose. > > I'd ask why it is that multiple groups of people have considered the > existing specifications and concluded that they'd be better off with > something else and gone of and specced and implemented it and > started deploying it. I'd ask the same question. RLBob post lends some clarity, but I'd be interested in hearing the use cases that 'multiple groups' identified, which were not fulfilled by existing work. (which informs the suggested 'review of prior work' above). =peterd (http://public.xdi.org/=peterd) _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
