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

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

OK, I will not object further on this point. We will take up the issue
again when it comes to deciding which items to do.

/jon
> 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
> 
> 

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     saperia@jdscons.com
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/