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

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

> > >> 4.1.3 only says that SMIng must be human readable. What is wrong 
> > >> with that? Note that the objectives document does not 
> specify the 
> > >> syntax of the solution.
> > 
> > Jon> If it is such a minor point, why is it in the document?
> > 
> > Because some WG members brought this up and the objective 
> is obviously 
> > not wrong. So here we are.
> 
> Juergen. Please see Joel's recent note. He has a good summary 
> point. The question is not about right or wrong. It is about 
> value of the proposal and requirements.

I do agree that there is still the question of subjectivity in what is
deemed as human readable.  Is it sufficient to leave the objective stated as
is and during the cost/benefit analysis more precisely define what is meant,
or should the object state an acceptable level of human readability?  I
think we agree that some level of human readibility is a fundamental
objective; we may differ on (1) the target audience and (2) what is human
readable and what is not.

> > Jon> My question was not what the Charter said. My question 
> was what 
> > Jon> is the current working group consensus?
> > 
> > Let me try again: The document under last call is written 
> to comply to 
> > the WG charter. If people think this is wrong, then I 
> believe they are 
> > saying that the charter is wrong.
> 
> The question is again not right or wrong. The question is (if 
> it is a charter one), is it the right thing at the present 
> time? By adjusting it now we might save some work. See my 
> last comment that follows your last statement. 

If this is a charter question, then a separate thread is probably the
appropriate place for this to take place.

> > Jon> Actually no, I am suggesting that for the majority of the 
> > Jon> requirements as stated in the document with the exceptions I 
> > Jon> noted, any solution is more costly than the benefit.
> > 
> > I accept your opinion, although I disagree with it.
> > 
> > Jon> I believe what we are properly debating is the cost/benefit of 
> > Jon> changes. I think the biggest bang for the buck is 
> found in a very 
> > Jon> small number of changes. Many of the rest are related 
> to sppi/smi 
> > Jon> merging and parser optimizations. Neither are high 
> priorities in 
> > Jon> my view.

Given that the SPPI/SMI merging is part of the WG charter, it seems to me
that it is a high priority for some.  As for the parser optimizations, I
believe that the useful ones will come out of the cost/benefit analysis and
the ones deemed unuseful will die a hopefully quick and merciful death.

I agree with your assessment that we are going to get a large bang for the
buck with a few very strategic objectives - the old 80-20 rule.  In fact,
your list of "high-priority" objectives and mine are pretty almost
identical.  I do not believe that this should cause us to abandon the other
objectives unless the cost/benefit analysis proves that they are just not
going to give us a good return on investment.

Jamie