RE: Requirements ad hoc
Michael,
I support splitting the requirements into three as you propose.
Also, Yogesh will include my other comments concerning the requirements in his email, in preparation for the telecon tomorrow.
Regards,
Alistair
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Michael.G.Williams@NOKIA.COM
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 2:31 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Requirements ad hoc
Hello everyone, thanks for a productive week, for setting high standards and being willing to work flexibly.
We will have another requirements ad hoc July 27th at 10AM Eastern time US. The editor will be making the changes we've asked for and posting the results by July 20.
Two additional editorial ideas were discussed to make things easier to work with and to help insure we reach the next milestone:
1) Remove the reference model drawings from the requirements and ask that each trigger proposal include reference model drawings.
2) Split the requirements into three equal documents (acknowledging the agreed-to phases of our work)
1) triggers
2) information database
3) "L2.5"
Each would essentially be a copy of what we have now but with only the corresponding subject in the architecture.
Please let me know via email if, in your opinion, these two changes that would facilitate concluding our requirements for triggers on the 27th. I will summarize the inputs and forward the decision to the list and to the editor. Discussion to the reflector is welcome, in addition to a note to me giving your opinion.
The conference call phone number will remain the same.
Best Regards,
Michael Williams
Vice Chair IEEE 802.21 Working Group