Sure. Adding (or putting back) a requirement on pre-configuration shouldn't be a problem. We'll work out a requirement which all of us is going to be happy with.
In the meantime, I would like to ask more people to review the draft and send comments to the list. As I mentioned in my previous mail, if you review the draft and have no comments, send a note to the list that the draft is good as it is, we need these notes as much as we need the actual comments. Thanks, Gabor -----Original Message----- From: ext Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 10:17 AM To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [paws] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-paws-problem-stmt-usecases-rqmts I beg to differ slightly. While preconfiguration is always possible, if we leave out the requirement to support it, then we are likely to also leave such configuration capabilities out of management models, etc. If it is "always possible" then including it in the requirements seems inexpensive. Yours, Joel On 5/17/2012 12:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: > O.3 The master device MUST identify a database to which it will > register, make channel requests, etc... The master device MAY > > select a database for service by discovery at runtime *or the master > device MAY select a database for service by means of a* > > *pre-programmed URI address.* > > However in the requirements it seems that the ability to support the > FCC model has been removed. Specifically: > > It appears that the data model requirements that supported hardcoded > URI addresses for WSDBs have been removed > > <GB> pre-configuration is always possible. We don't need a separate > requirement for it. > _______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
