I'm looking at the May 8th cloud imaging model and requirements, with an eye towards revisiting the use-cases and requirements.
Looking at the document, it appears that we have already "designed" how the system is supposed to work, so I'm not sure if use-cases or requirements even need to be documented at this point.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that we basically already know how the system is supposed to work, and working backwards on requirements and use-cases may not be the best use of our time.
In my experience, the order of operations goes something like:
1. BOF (ok, this sounds like something useful, let's get started)
3. Requirements (somewhat detailed, derived from use-cases)
4. Functional Specification (how the system is supposed to work, which is much of what we have done to date)
5. Design Document (for implementers)
I think we've actually been spending quite a bit of time on #4 above, and again, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing -- We have sections of the imaging model and requirements document that are titled "Design Requirements", which should is probably not the right document for a section of this name. However, we do need "Functional Requirements" section (or document). This section would describe system behavior and any exceptions or error conditions that might be encountered.
We actually "did" approach the cloud printing problem with use-cases in mind, those being the standard (fundamental) imaging use-cases and behavior that we've adopted from IPP and SM documents. And we also considered the only major constraint (requirement) when coming up with the model….that being that the system should work between complicated NAT/FW/routing infrastructures and the public internet (cloud). So we did already come up with a basic functional spec based on existing imaging use-cases and one "new" requirement for cloud printing (FW/NAT compatibility).
To maximize our efficiency in getting this document done, I would recommend that we change the name to:
"Cloud Imaging Model and Functional Specification" since we seem to already know how the system is supposed to work (in some detail).
On Jun 3, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Michael Sweet wrote:
>> I have posted the minutes from today's Cloud Imaging WG conference call to:
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/minutes/cloud-concall-minutes-20130603.pdf>> Our next conference call is June 17, 2013 at 3pm ET.
>> There were no new action items.
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.