Subject: Re: [mile] SCI document and WG decision

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:22:48 -0400

Hello,

The list is in agreement with the decision from the IETF meeting in Vancouver and this message ends the call for opinions.

This means that we as a group have some work to do.  We will start with the SCI draft not having any included schemas, then decide what are the needed schemas to incorporate in the draft prior to WGLC and publication.  The SCI draft does create IANA tables where additional schemas can be added to the SCI method of extending IODEF.

The SCI draft will incorporate developed schemas (not extensions specific to IODEF as those can be drafts on their own) that add value by enabling the IODEF schema to be extended and creating relationships to these schema standards.  The format Take chose in the SCI draft categorizes schemas to create those relationships and creates patterns for the schemas to be added.

I think the most useful approach here would be to have use case driven discussions.

We need at least ONE schema to be agreed upon for the entire draft to meet the IETF definition and purpose for having a Mandatory To Implement (MTI) schema for the SCI draft.  One MTI is beneficial for vendors to be able to claim interoperability, but not necessarily to require full support for all the schemas in the eventual tables as the vendors may be supporting different use cases and we do not want to make it too hard to implement as that could delay implementations or stop them altogether.

Let's not get into the MTI discussion yet, but discuss schemas that are needed to compliment IODEF is a standard way to enable business use cases to be met.

I'll start a new thread asking for use case driven examples and the schemas that best fit those use cases.

Thank you,
Kathleen

From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 1:24 PM
To: Moriarty, Kathleen; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: SCI document and WG decision

+1
Panos

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Moriarty, Kathleen
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:40 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mile] SCI document and WG decision

Hello,

At the IETF meeting in Vancouver, the WG consensus was to remove the referenced specifications from the SCI draft so that the document could progress without IP issues.  In this model, the draft would have empty tables and the WG would then decide which specifications or standards references would get added into the document.  The thought was that the WG could think more carefully about what specifications were important to reference to meet relevant use cases for the community.  The process would include a review of the specification to ensure we could reference it, including that the specification or standard is a document that the IETF can normatively reference.

Does the WG agree on this approach?  (consensus needs to be shown on the list in one direction or another to formalize and move forward).

We will give this a two week period for responses, finishing the morning of September 3rd.

Thank you in advance!
Kathleen