I would simply like to say that I agree with your last statements. I
have reviewed your requirements document, and agree with the contents.
I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble getting consensus on the
requirements document - maybe the others involved here could elaborate.
If an IPP based implementation is so inviting, that seems to imply
consensus.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Martin [SMTP:jkm@underscore.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 1:32 PM
To: don
Cc: sense
Subject: Re: SENSE> Where to go from here?
Good commens, Don. I agree with you entirely on the subject of
focus and how it can and should foster rapid success.
What concerns me, I guess, is that Tom would have us rush in and
use Sense--as it is currently defined and implemented--to immediately
address the needs of IPP and JMP. This approach implies a complete
and unanimous group approval on the Sense work to date.
As the primary Sense developer, I should be both flattered and
excited at the thought of such an immediate adoption of Sense as
Underscore has conceived it. However, I wasn't born yesterday...
Carl-Uno made the observation that Sense's current design was
probably overkill for IPP...at least for *some* scenarios of IPP,
anyway. And I tend to agree, to a certain extent.
What I am hoping we can do in the immediate future is:
1. Get group consensus on the base set of requirements and
reasonable constraints. This document should serve as
the best guide to know when we have run "into the mud" on
any given Sense topic in the future.
2. Commence discussions on the basic operational nature of events
as seen (and handled) by consumers and producers of events.
This discussion should naturally converge towards a basic
understanding of such critical issues as protocol design, the
concept of a "session" (remember, we're talking about a
subscription/publication model here), and other related issues.
Does everyone agree with this initial starting point? If so, then
the next step (step #3) would be to draft up the first concrete
design using IPP and/or JMP as the target event environment.
By the way, it is now Wednesday, Nov 5, the deadline I had previously
set for comments on the base requirements document. Unfortunately,
as of this writing, no one has posted any comments (privately or
publicly) on the document contents. The document may be found on
the PWG server at:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/sense/reqmts.txt
I would appreciate it if folks would take 5-10 minutes to read the
document (it is a *very* simple document), then post whether you
agree with its contents, or post some changes/concerns/complaints/etc.
If no one takes the time to comment on the proposed draft--an action
which is considered core and ESSENTIAL in standards development--then
I would tend to believe that we are wasting our time with Sense at
this point, as our discussions would not be focused towards the kinds
of goals that we have all come to recognize in all other PWG efforts.
Flames are welcome at this point. Any discusson is better than no
discussion. ;-)
...jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- JK Martin | Email: jkm@underscore.com --
-- Underscore, Inc. | Voice: (603) 889-7000 --
-- 41C Sagamore Park Road | Fax: (603) 889-2699 --
-- Hudson, NH 03051-4915 | Web: http://www.underscore.com --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
don@lexmark.com wrote:
>
> jkm said:
>
> >I guess I'm a bit disappointed by your response in which you appear
> >to give credence to Tom's rather rash, "skip the requirements"
> >approach to progressing Sense.
> >
> >Apparently neither of you got the gist of my earlier message in
> >which I stated that we had to get back to basics so that people
> >can understand how the current Sense architecture resulted in the
> >way that it did.
>
> What really is the question here? Should we narrow the focus
> of the SENSE requirements to be focused specifically on an IPP
> or similar environment or should they be broad and cover the
> range from a local network to the entire Internet?
>
> We, as the PWG, have run into this problem before. If we
> narrow our scope we stand a chance of getting some done. Of
> course the downside is that what we end up with probably won't
> scale easily. On the other hand, if we try to do something
> broad and all encompassing, chances are nothing will happen.
>
> What do we really want to accomplish? Is a narrow, focused
> set of requirements that address the IPP environment a good
> start and can we discipline ourselves to not paint ourselves
> into a scalability corner?
>
> Don
>
> **********************************************
> * Don Wright don@lexmark.com *
> * Manager, Strategic Alliances and Standards *
> * Lexmark International *
> * 740 New Circle Rd *
> * Lexington, Ky 40550 *
> * 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
> **********************************************