[cgl_discussion] POC 11/5/03 Meeting Minutes

[Venkata Jagana]

>AR Venkata to provide updated requirement.

Since it was decided in PoC meeting today to add note(s) to developers
instead of changing a requirement, here is the corresponding text for
consideration in the errata or whatever document, PoC will come up with.

"There is currently an on-going effort within IETF to combine IPv4 and
IPv6 MIBs into corresponding unified MIBs (i.e.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-04.txt
for IP,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-04.txt
for TCP,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-01.txt
for UDP).  The current versions (a.k.a. work-in-progress documents) of
these unified documents are currently expected within IETF to become
proposed standards soon and thus would be replacing the current standard
RFC's (which will then be marked obsolete) for these MIBs as specified in
SVC 1.4 requirement.

Hence, the developers are encouraged to implement based on these unified
work-in-progress MIB documents (ptrs above) and thus continue to make
changes until these draft standards become proposed standards.
"

Thanks,
Venkat




                                                                                                                                               
                      Steven Dake                                                                                                              
                      <sdake at mvista.com>                To:       cgl_discussion at osdl.org                                                      
                      Sent by:                          cc:                                                                                    
                      cgl_discussion-bounces at lis        Subject:  [cgl_discussion] POC 11/5/03 Meeting Minutes                                 
                      ts.osdl.org                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               
                      11/05/2003 10:35 AM                                                                                                      
                      Please respond to sdake                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               




POC 11/5/03 Meeting Minutes

Attendees
Venkata @ IBM
Rusty @ Intel
Julie @ Intel
Mika @ OSDL
Johannes @ Nokia
Pradeep @ Cisco
Ge @ Sun
Steve @ MontaVista
Ashish @ Timesys
La Monte Yarrol AKA piggy @ Timesys

Errata Process
--------------
Grammatical Errors should be corrected
* Errors like CCM 1.2  that are confusing should be corrected without
changing spirit of requirements significantly.
* we should not remove clauses of requirements, only modify them when
they are unclear.
* if we define terms such as immediatly or fast, we should be careful
not to exclude any current POCs that could possibly meet the requirement

* Process is POC sends errata to SPECS, SPECS approves or disapproves,
once SPECS approves, send to techboard for signoff
* Rationale must be provided for each correction.
* developer notes seperate from errata but in same document.  Both are
binding on requirements in terms of registration.
* Three classes of errata, developer notes, narrowing requirements to
minimize misinterpretations, and grammatical errors which dont change
the requirement meaning
* Take our time and only produce one errata document this year.

Errata #1 IPv6 MIBs
-------------------
AR Venkata to provide updated requirement.
current RFCs not obsolete, not obsolete for awhile, internet drafts
updated but not accepted as proposed standards.  Current draft
implementations should be considered as acceptable to meet the
requirements of this requirement.

Errata #2
---------
AR julie
not errata with the specs, but with tracking list.
Errata #3
---------
AR steve specify instead of immediately, some implementation specific
timeout perioud.

Errata #4
---------
AR steve errata as suggested in agenda.

Errata #5
---------
AR steve to write changed requirement.

Errata #6
---------
AR steve remove extra bullet.



_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion