RE: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

I don't think a lack of accurate forsight should weaken protocol 
requirements. If in two years we realize that one (or both) are in 
practice never used, we can update the RFC.

The real question is whether folks think there is a *need* (for 
consistent/interoperable implementations) to require one (or two)
BC model(s)?  Or not.

regards,

Jim

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:

> Jerry,
> 
> >> Just to be clear:
> >> 
> >> The suggestion is to specify 2 *default* BC models in the 
> >> proto draft 
> >> http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto
> -02.txt.  Recall that the requirements draft
> http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-06.txt
> calls for at least one BC model and allows for additional BC models to
> be specified later:
> 
> >> 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. 
> 
> The point I have been trying to convey, though, is that if in 2 years
> time it turns out that we all realise that noone 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? 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Francois
>  
> 
>