[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: NIM requirements/conventions (was Re: Methods in the NIM requ irements)


Aside from the methods discussion, I have not heard concerns beyond the
clarifications of a few of the requirements. If you have additional
requirements, it would be a good idea to bring them up now. As soon as the
discussions around requirements dies down, I am going propose that we start
the language discussion. I don't see a reason why guidelines can't be
developed in parallel with the language discussion.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 3:09 AM
> To: WWeiss@lucentctc.com
> Cc: nim@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: NIM requirements/conventions (was Re: Methods in the NIM
> requ irements)
> >>>>> Weiss, Walter writes:
> Walter> Your question also seems to imply that this question could be
> Walter> addressed at some later point (say after a WG is formed). It
> Walter> is these types of issues that determine the ultimate success
> Walter> of a WG. I, for one, would prefer to resolve these issues to
> Walter> prove the viability of a WG and determine the degree to which
> Walter> the various interests are willing to compromise.
> For me, writing guidelines now is like writing a tutorial for a piece
> of software before you did the requirements analysis and 
> specification.
> I personally would never do that - but this is of course no reasons to
> stop others from trying it if they believe that this is essential for
> the ultimate success of a (not yet existing) WG.
> /js
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
> <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
> Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 
> Braunschweig, Germany
> Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>