Concensus Call on REQ Draft: Issue #16

Hi,

I would humm for option 2.

Reason: The DT (&WG) must do their background work
before going into
designing something, "Don't re-invent the
wheel". The DT must know their
field well, and only design new things if nothing useful
exists.

This is related to my earlier comment about the gap
analysis. The WG must
do a proper analysis of existing related work before
claiming that a
totally new protocol must be engineered.

Regards,
Jukka

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, James Kempf wrote:

> This note is to continue discussion on Issue #16 which
applies to the REQ
> draft. The issue is whether to add an explicit design
goal to require maximum
> reuse of existing protocols and backward compatibility
in the NETLMM protocol.
> The three possible options discussed at the meeting
are:
> 
> 1) Not add any text in the REQ draft for such goal.
Leave it up to the DT and
> WG to use best engineering judgement where reuse of
existing protocols is
> appropriate and where new protocols are needed, so the
goal is implicit.
> 
> 2) Make point 1) explicit as a goal in the REQ draft
and say that the DT and
> WG should consider existing protocols when doing the
design and only do new
> protocol work where necessary.
> 
> 3) Add a goal to the REQ draft that says the DT and WG
must reuse existing
> protocols.
> 
> We'll run discussion until Friday, March 31. Please
indicate in your reply to
> this email if you favor 1), 2), or 3).
> 
>            jak
_______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmmngnet.it
> https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmmngnet.it
https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm