hi,
see A. beck response regarding the requirement draft.
on the otherhadn, I agree with you that the resulting protocol better meet
the requirement draft (at least for most of the cases)
abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov(_at_)measurement-factory(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 3:40 PM
To: OPES Group
Subject: RE: protocol core now, transport/encoding later
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Abbie Barbir wrote:
-- good questions that u raise, however, the questions should have
been answered in the protocol requirements draft, so i
suggest that we
start from there.
Abbie,
My understanding is that the requirements draft does
not answer those questions. Moreover, there is no clear
boundary between protocol requirements and actual decision
points in protocol design. The requirements may be very
specific or quite general. We ended up with general
requirements. Fine. The requirements stage is now behind us,
and I would like to avoid going back unless absolutely
necessary. Regardless of how we answer the questions raised,
the resulting protocol is likely to satisfy the requirements
draft, and that's all we should care about. It is time for
specific protocol-level work, IMO.
If my understanding is wrong, and some of the questions are
already clearly answered by the requirements draft, please
quote these answers, and we will move on.
Thank you,
Alex.
--
| HTTP performance - Web
Polygraph benchmark www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP
compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
| all of the above - PolyBox appliance