Hi, Brian, On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Spencer, > On 2018-10-25 15:54, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > ... > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I'm confused here ... > > > > This document describes a first, simple, implementable phase of an > > Autonomic Networking solution. It is expected that the experience > > from this phase will be used in defining updated and extended > > specifications over time. Some topics are considered architecturally > > in this document, but are not yet reflected in the implementation > > specifications. They are marked with an (*). > > > > This is true now, but when this document is approved, will it be > published > > immediately (in which case, this is "truth decay", because it becomes > less true > > in the unchanging RFC every time a topic is reflected in implementation > > specifications), or will it be held until all the (*)s are stable? > > The intention is to publish it now; the (*) items are FFS (for further > study) > in ITU or ISO speak. Should we make the last sentence explicit?: > > They are marked with an (*) and are intended for further study. > Thanks for the quick reply. I think that would be an improvement, but if it was clear that there's a reason to include them in a document being published now, that might be useful to include. If it's possible that some of these items might be significantly re-thought after further study, or even dropped, that seems unhelpful to a reader in five years. Spencer > Brian > >
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
