> On May 27, 2015, at 1:41 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:13:59PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
>> The I2RS interim is schedule for Wednesdsay 5/27 10:00am – 11:30am. The 
>> interim schedule opens 30 minutes early to allow speakers to check their 
>> mike and make sure there slides are ready. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> There are two topics on the agenda: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1)      I2RS Protocol requirements  with discussion on the following drafts  
>> 
>> a.       
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-i2rs-ephemeral-state-reqs/  (WG 
>> adoption 5/26 to 6/9/2015) 
>> 
>> b.      
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-i2rs-netmod-netconf-requirements 
>> (WG adoption 5/26 to 6/9/2015)
>> 
> 
> I can't make it to this meeting. My suggestion is to merge the above
> two I-Ds into one I-D. There is already overlap.

I believe I’d prefer to not adopt the netmod-netconf draft.  Its goal, as 
explained during the last netconf WG session that I presented it in, is to 
simply use it as the placeholder “TODO” list for the actual drafts covering the 
work.  However, there was strong pressure to have adopted WG items to cover the 
contents.  The state draft is another piece of that.

I believe this leaves authentication requirements as the only meaningful 
content.  A last draft covering that may perhaps be spun out or not as the WG 
desires.  After that, the netmod-netconf requirements draft can die.

> It also seems that
> a. goes quite a bit into solution space, so calling it a requirements
> document may be a bit of a stretch. (But that said, we need to start
> talking about solutions since we already have a document full of
> requirements.)

The actual requirements have been stalled since before the NYC interim: We need 
ephemeral state.  The implications of any given solution space are too 
important to draft requirements in the absence of some understanding of the 
likely solution.

I’m happy to rename the draft something that doesn’t contain the word 
“requirements” if you have a better suggestion.

— Jeff

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to