Subject: RE: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:27:56 -0000

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

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:20:32 -0500 (EST)

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