Subject: [NSIS] WG Last call on the Requirements Draft?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:49:51 +0300

Hi all,

The Requirements Document (found here)

 <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-req-04.txt>

and seems largely stable and discussion on it has largely quieted
down.  

It seems reasonable to start a working group last call on it.

If there is no opposition, I propose a working group last call
on the document, starting October 18th and completing on November
1st.

If this is OK with the WG, I will send another mail with instructions
on how to file issues.

best regards,
John

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:41:15 -0400

I think that if last call is needed to stimulate discussion
we should forge ahead but it seems to me that the document
is nowhere near ready to go to the IESG.  I've been remiss
about going through it in detail, but a quick scan shows
that there's quite a bit of framework material in it.  Aside
from being unnecessary to the document, it runs the risk of
conflicting with the separate framework document that's
currently under development.  

If you take a look at other requirements documents that have
recently been published as RFCs in the Transport Area you'll
see that the actual requirements material typically starts
somewhere around page 4 or 5 and sometimes as early as page
1.  In the NSIS requirements document the requirements
material starts on page 10.  I think a great deal of that
introductory material should be removed from the
requirements document and integrated into the framework
document if it's not already in there.

I'll post more specific comments by the end of the week, but
thought that the above may bear on the question of whether
or not the document should go into last call.

Melinda

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:02:05 -0400

> But in some of your later mails you say we need to define what this and 
> that means. And I do not see framework stuff in it more terminology.

I'm referring specifically to sections 3 and 4, as well as
text scattered throughout the requirements section (section
5).

Melinda

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:57:34 +0200

[..]

Marcus
--------------------------------------
Dr. Marcus Brunner
Network Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: [email-masked]
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
Phone: +49 (0) 6221 905 11 29
personal home page: http://www.brubers.org/marcus