...
- Feedback to ETSI
- haven't done the feedback yet
- the comments received are marked in red
- ask for agreement on Tuesday about whether to take these feedback to ETSI, and if permitted, Thinh will provide a contribution back to ETSI
- Party proposal
- leftover questions:
- 1) do we 100% follow TMF? A: No. Would deviate if needed.
- 2) do we want more detailed proposal?
- Kevin's plan is to have a skeleton first and fill in the contents where necessary.
- Further comments:
- There's a comment on the wiki questioning the use case of having the model of vendors.
- There's code using these concepts (but maybe not actually used), the purpose is to give some visibility. Example: license.
- use case's relationship with models
- model without use case seems useless
- having model discussion first could help understand the use case
- the models takes time to be mature, so maybe it's better to have model discussions first or at the same time as the use case
- need motivation for creating the models, it's hard to review the model without understanding the use case
- question: what's the relationship/process between use case and model work?
- should we
- ask use case subcommittee to review the models after the models are proposed?
- should we ask use case subcommittee to document the related use cases (e.g., license) before making the models?
- should we do the use case and models in parallel? how?
- There's a comment on the wiki questioning the use case of having the model of vendors.
- leftover questions: