John Merrells 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. <snip/> > > 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.
Simply because a variety of folks are re-inventing the wheel for a variety of reasons doesn't mean blindly doing it again is a reasonable thing to do.
I can see why ad-hoc coalitions and/or company-driven efforts are doing such, but I don't think an SDO-based working group should do so, especially given the amount of prior related work in this area, as PeterD mentioned.
Peter Davis wrote: > 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. agreed. Peter Davis continued: > 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). Yep. JeffH _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
