RE: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-02.txt

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:08 AM
> 
> Jason> 2.  As for requirements that should be moved - the document
> Jason> reflects the consensus of the requirements discussions.  If the
> Jason> working group decides it is desirable to move requirements from
> Jason> rejected to accepted, etc., then I will move them in the
> Jason> document.
> 
> The purpose of a WG last call is to check whether the document indeed
> reflects consensus. Obviously, some WG members that have been involved
> in all meetings etc. think it does not reflect consensus.

[Dave] I will try to pull out these items in question out from the list of
87 & summarize.
> 
> Jason> I am not sure how to interpret the lack of responses to your
> Jason> email (or even the period of quiet after the last call) - given
> Jason> that tomorrow is a holiday in the U.S., I will optimistically
> Jason> assume that many people are taking vacation and will be
> Jason> responding next week :)
> 
> It is hard to argue about silence. But it is the WG chair's job to
> determine concensus and to take any actions which help to determine
> concensus (such as putting up deadlines). The deadline for IDs is July
> 20 and I hope that we are done with the final version by that time.

[Dave] If the proposal is made on the mailing to move a rejected requirement
to and accepted requirement, and if no one voices a reasoned opinion
against, I will analyze the interim meeting minutes and see if there was an
issue with consensus or not. Assuming the proposed requirement has a clear
motivation, then it can be changed to required. Juergen, since you have
already raised your proposals to move a few of the requirements around, the
WG should look at those proposals and let the mailing list know if there any
objections. Two weeks from June 30th, which is when you submitted your list,
is July 13th. This is more than sufficient time for people to object to any
of your proposals.

> 
> Jason> 3.  As for totally dropping from the document requirements with
> Jason> no motivation, I will have to abdicate to the WG chair (Dave
> Jason> are you there???).  Is it sufficient to make sure they are in
> Jason> rejected section, or should they be totally removed from the
> Jason> document?  Only one requirement in the accepted section,
> Jason> "Tables", has no motivation - you had another issue with this
> Jason> requirement anyway.  The remaining with no motivation are in
> Jason> the rejected section.
> 
> I think there is a difference between a requirement which never was
> really formulated (a requirement without any motivation is in my view
> not complete) and a requirement which was formulated, discussed and
> finally rejected. 
> 
> But you right: we need guidance from the WG chair on how to apply our
> rules.

[Dave] First, if there is no motivation for a requirement it is still fine
for it to appear in the REJECTED REQUIREMENTS section. This section
specified which proposed requirements were discussed but there was
insufficient consensus to make them required to be part of sming. This will
show that at least the requirement was brought up, even if insufficiently
motivated. As for tables, if there is no motivation, it is clearly not an
accepted requirement... Although I recall some motivation related to keeping
the table nomenclature to remain consistent with SMIv2 & SPPI terminology,
and making translations between SMIv2 and SMIng easier. Afterall, many of
the existing description clauses refer to tables.
> 
> /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/>
> 
> 
> 
>