Subject: [sacm] Terry Manderson's Abstain on draft-ietf-sacm-requirements-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:35:18 -0700

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sacm-requirements-16: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sacm-requirements/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am balloting ABSTAIN on this document as I don't see strong value in a set of
requirements as a standalone document added to the RFC series. I appreciate
it's an extension of the use-cases document and a WG milestone but it reads
like the architecture and info model is already done (and indeed WG revisions
of that work look mature). In which case I STRONGLY urge that the 10 pages of
requirements be placed (as required) in appendices of the milestone documents
(information-model, data-model, protocol/Interface, architecture etc). This
maintains the rationale for the designs in question and aids the reader in
comprehension of the work.

That said, with ABSTAIN positions, I am not blocking publication of this
document and I shall leave it to the responsible AD to adjudicate.