RE: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <gash@att.com>]

Francois,

>> So the suggestion is to specify 2 default BC models (RDM & MAM) in
>> the proto draft and allow for additional BC models to be introduced in
>> the future (e.g., MAR, or something else).  I suggest we try to get
>> consensus on that since it will ensure interoperability in the near term
>> and allow for improvements/extensions in the future. 

> This is clear.
> Yes, what we had specified in the Requirements document allows for
> extension. And as I said, I could live with that.

Good.  So I'm suggesting we go with the above proposal.
 
> The point I have been trying to convey, though, is that if in 2 years
> time it turns out that we all realise that no one actually uses RDM and
> MAM because everybody realised that Model_xyz is much better, then we
> are left with specifications that mandate support for something useless.
> I am not saying this will happen for sure, I just don't know. 
> Do you get my point?

Yes I get your point.  I agree that better BC models may come along in the future (e.g., MAR or something else).  Both proposals allow for that, however, specifying 2 default BC models guarantees interoperability in the near term.

> Do you feel confident that RDM and MAM will always be required anyway?
> Or are you saying it is no big deal if we mandate two models that are
> not the ones eventually used in the long run.

Actually both.  I'm saying that in the beginning DSTE should at least allow (require) either RDM or MAM to be used, so that operators can use DSTE (with either RDM or MAM) as soon as vendors implement.  This will ensure interoperability from the get-go of DSTE.  Better models can come along in the long term, be standardized, and (hopefully) be implemented by all vendors used by an operator.

I hope that others on the list will express their opinions.

Thanks,
Jerry