Hi,
In IETF (e.g., IPP) and W3C the requirements are for the standard (NOT for
the implementations of the eventual protocol).
A naked list of requirements in a new section would satisfy the letter
(though
not the spirit) of this PWG Process/2.0 prerequisite.
We've still got to write something about why Discovery is NOT included in
WIMS (and contrary to recent notes is NOT necessary even out-of-band for
WIMS implementations). WIMS is not just an SNMP browser replacement.
You can reconfigure systems and take them down with WIMS. That needs
explicit prior administrative configuration of roles, privileges, and
parent/child
relationships, not just discovery.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: wamwagner@comcast.net [mailto:wamwagner@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:55 PM
To: McDonald, Ira; 'wims@pwg.org'
Subject: Re: WIMS> Move WIMS requirements to separate spec
The inclusion of the earlier documents for scenarios and requirements (which
documents did represent a major investment of time and energy) was a trial.
I agree that this section overwhelms the WIMS spec and needs some severe
editing if not complete elimination. Further, there were functional
requirements implicit in the scenarios that were eventually dropped or
pushed off.
Although I think the scenarios (properly edited) are useful and aid in the
understanding of the WIMS objectives, I have no objection to just including
a summary requirements section in the spec. I believe the Process document
is unclear as to whether the statement of requirements is "of" the protocol
or requirements "for" the protocol. Despite first sentence of Process
paragraph 4.4, "... the statement of requirements for the standard to be
produced is required", the gist of the paragraph appears to relate to
requirements of the standard. In this case (which seems to be the
interpretation taken by other working groups), dropping the scenarios and
just updating the requirements section in the current draft would appear to
satisfy the intent of the process.
Bill Wagner
-------------- Original message --------------
> Hi,
>
> New thread for this topic - echoing Harry's concern.
>
> We had hoped to move the WIMS Protocol spec into 'last call'
> much sooner by including the WIMS Requirements, because each
> prerequisite Formal Approval will use up at least two PWG
> face-to-face meeting cycles (one for 'last call' and one for
> the editorial cleanups and subsequent vote on Formal Approval).
>
> But if we leave these WIMS Requirements in this single document,
> we could waste a lot of time meant to be spent on substantive
> issues in the body of the WIMS Protocol spec discussing the
> editorial fixups for the requirements.
>
> Note that the PWG Process/2.0 does not require use cases.
> It just mandates requirements, so some major trunca! tion is
> possible, if we want to take that path.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira
>
>
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> phone: +1-906-494-2434
> email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 25 2005 - 13:44:26 EST