RE: comments on draft-ietf-sming-reqs-03.txt

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Case [mailto:case@snmp.com]
> 
> Jeff> 1.  there are too many requirements
> 
> frank>I think, this statement itself is way too general. 
> Please look at each
> frank>single requirement in Section 4.1 of the current I-D 
> that you don't
> frank>feel comfortable with and *argue* about why it should 
> be moved to 4.2
> frank>or 4.3.
> 
> 1.  please note that the sheer quantity of requirements makes 
> focus impossible
> 
[Dave] I'm not sure I see the point here. Many of the requirements are very
specific, such as remove IMPLIED keyword. Also as I look at other
requirements documents and problem statement documents throughout the IETF,
I see approximately the same number of detailed requirements as for SMIng
(see AAA for example). If you are arguing for more organization, say
grouping related requirements under a common header, eg. *Reuse*, than
that's a slightly different matter. Of course, once you state something as
broad as *Reuse*, the next question is "what do you mean, reuse?" And we get
right back to the specific requirements that achieve the broader
requirement.

>     this working group, like all ietf working groups, needs focus
> 
>     i would hope that this is a basic point on which we can agree
> 
>     i would further hope we can also agree that if someone were to say
>     they "are focused on 45 things simultaneously" that it would sound
>     silly on the face of it
> 
>     my point is exactly what i said:  there are too many 
> requirements in
>     the requirements document
> 
>     i believe it is in the best interest of the working group 
> to winnow
>     the list further before progressing to the next phase
> 
>     i am definitely not interested in attempting to *argue* 
> (your term and
>     emphasis) about any and expecially not all of them
> 
>     perhaps it would be more fruitful to see if we agree on the basics
> 
>     only then is it reasonable to attempt a rational discussion of one
>     or more of the individual items
> 
>
>