To:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, Ietf-Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>
Date:
Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:23:48 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.30.0103200801470.32298-100000@loki.ar.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Pre-meeting notes
At 11:06 AM -0500 3/20/01, Rick H Wesson wrote: >Unless you can be more specific about what has not been addressed in this >area I think we are ok. I do think the requirements document is okay with extensibility, the definitions document is not. What I had in mind for this design team is to be set to analyze the protocol spec to make sure we maintain the ability to be extensible. I didn't mean to intone that the requirements aren't addressing extensibility. But I think that the words written (specificially in 7.5) aren't strong enough to ensure that we are headed towards an extensible protocol. That being said, I believe the requirements document is okay as is - because "extensibility" is not something you can measure/specify in advance, especially in this case. (In other words, I can't imagine a yes/no statement that, if yes, means "it" is extensibile, no "it" is not.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NAI Labs Phone: +1 443-259-2352 Email: lewis@tislabs.com Dilbert is an optimist. Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.