Re: Design draft role, implementation requirements (Was: latest draft snapshot)

No, that's fine. The document needs to be concise as to what is required of
the protocol, and the architecture.

I was just commenting on what seemed to be an assumption in your email that
the document was intended to be the protocol design, rather than to guide
it, unless the intent of the WG in this case is to not abide by that
customary relationship.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bora Akyol" <[email protected]>
To: "'James Kempf'" <[email protected]>; "'Jari Arkko'"
<[email protected]>; "'Tschofenig Hannes'"
<[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: [Mobike] Design draft role, implementation requirements (Was:
latest draft snapshot)


> Do you disagree with putting a summary of requirements section
> somewhere in the framework?
>
> If you do disagree, why?
>
> Bora
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Kempf [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:50 AM
> > To: Bora Akyol; 'Jari Arkko'; 'Tschofenig Hannes'
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Mobike] Design draft role, implementation
> > requirements (Was: latest draft snapshot)
> >
> >
> > > I am fine with that, the problem is that this framework document is
> > > not sufficiently concise in the requirements area so that I can go
> > > ahead and write code off of.
> > >
> >
> > A framework document isn't ever sufficiently concise to write
> > code off of.
> > It should be sufficiently concise to guide the design of the
> > protocol, which should be sufficiently precise to write code
> > off of. Or, at least, that is my understanding of the usual
> > relationship between framework documents and code design
> > (i.e. Proposed Standard) documents.
> >
> >
> >             jak
> >
>