RE: WG Last Call draft-ietf-sming-reqs-04.txt

["Jason, Jamie" <jamie.jason@intel.com>]

Jon Saperia writes:

> > Jon> If it as an rfc, even an informational one, and it has 
> the words 
> > Jon> requirements and sming in it, then I think it is way 
> bloated and 
> > Jon> will not serve the purpose of advancing management.
> > 
> > Did you read the latest version? We have carefully replaced 
> > requirement with objective based on the WG discussions in London.
> > 
> > (Removing SMIng from the document is hard as it is all about SMIng.)
> 
> Juergen yes I read both. The word between requirements and 
> sming in my note was 'and'. 
> 
> As I also said previously, lets see what others have to say. 
> I will read the thread when I get back from vacation. 

I am comfortable with the document as it stands, with the knowledge that we
are still faced with the task of doing the cost/benefit analysis.  Your
argument that we are potentially making more work for ourselves by doing the
cost/benefit analysis after the objectives document is done is sensible, but
my interpretation of the consensus from the London meeting is that that was
the WG decision moving forward.

We have worked hard, including depriving attendees of the Seattle meeting of
food :), to whittle down the objectives from the 75 or so original to the 45
we have now.  I believe that after figuring out the bang for the buck that
we will discard more.

Jamie