Subject: Re: [Ace] Arguments to publish use case document as RFC

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:05:47 +0100

On 2015-01-29 19:13, Sean Turner wrote:

[a number of good thoughts.]

> Put me in the camp that thinks this uc/req draft should be published
> now.

+1.  Main reasons: We still have the energy*), and we want to get this
off the table so we can use it (as intended) as input for the
specification-level discussion of the WG.

On a more meta level, I'm hearing a number of good arguments for not
wanting to use up WG time upfront on something like a use case document.
Now in this case, that doesn't apply: We already did use up that time.
More generally speaking, getting a good view of the use cases is a good
use of WG time *if* the "requirements engineering" (bickering around the
requirements until your solution looks best) phase can be avoided.

Should this be published as an RFC?  Yes, some of our views might change
over time, and yes, that publication process does consume some valuable
IESG time, but there are a lot of good arguments for publication.
-- First of all, the document simply is good.  Real RFC material.
-- Getting it published can help it guide the discussions (including
   making it so much easier to introduce new people to what the work is
   about).
-- The process of getting it published usually supplies a final jolt of
   energy that can make the document even better (and increase the focus
   of the WG in the process).  It is hard to overestimate this effect.
-- Diversity.**)

Indeed, this is a "start-of-WG" style use cases document, and it doesn't
hurt to label it as such -- this is not trying to cover the surface of
the earth.

Gruesse, Carsten

*) As a WG chair of the former 6LoWPAN WG, I can tell you it is not a
 good experience to have informational input documents drag on in
 parallel with the main specification work.  Please let's avoid a repeat
 of that experience.

**) OK, that was a rather opaque comment at the microphone in Honolulu.
 Let me expand: If we want to have inclusion of academics, we need to
 consider what makes them tick.  The coin in which academics are paid is
 publication.  Not giving them the opportunity of publication means they
 can't reasonably invest their time.  We don't want to limit ourselves
 to the help of unreasonable academics.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:14:12 -0500

Thanks for your input, Carsten.  Inline.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 3:05 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I think this might apply more to engaging real customers as opposed to researchers.  We are interested to develop real solutions that will get used.  Researchers might best help us with awareness on new techniques (their research or research they are aware of).  If researchers are guided by real world problems working with customers, then perhaps they might be he authors of use case drafts.  In any case, these are 2 groups we don't have enough of and need to encourage their participation.

Thanks for the helpful input!
Kathleen 

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace