Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com>]

> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCTA wrote:
>
> > We would like to call for agreement that
>
> I for one will disagree with your proposal of need for additional
> (ancillary?) requirements documents at this time.

This is fine and simple: fold the multi-area requirements into the base
requirements doc.

My understanding (and your implication below) is that there is a desire to move
forward quickly with the mainline TE requirements.  Our intention with this
draft is to cover the extended requirements in a separate draft so that their
discussion would not block the advance of the main requirements document.

> In the interest of progress, I would suggest we just strike the sentences
> which call for more requirements documents (from within the requirements
> documents on the matter!) ,  or leave them there and see what's on the
> table of technical proposals.  The sentence "... may need to be extended."
> captures the scope sufficiently, I'm not sure another 40 pages of
> requirements discussion will be of any practical result.

Without a clear requirements statement a disparate set of protocols will be
developed addressing only bits and pieces of the problem.  The TEWG is clearly
the place to carry out the work of developing the requirements, and these can
then be fed through to CCAMP (or where-ever) to make the protocol changes as
necessary.

Of course it is difficult to gauge the interest in the draft simply from the
list of authors and the emails sent and received external to the TEWG mail-list.
Perhaps you would consent to discuss the need for this work in SLC and move to
adopt the draft if there is sufficient interest (and the draft appears to be
going in the right direction).

Thanks,
Adrian