[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > plant would often want to have a combination of both scenarios: > The manufacturing plant might prefer to not be connected to the > Internet (== scenario 1) AND pledges want to be of the type defined > via Scenario 2.
Will we be able to avoid normative cross-references? Probably not.
So the documents will progress together.
I think that where we will benefit will be in the review/reader point of view.
> Meaning: I would not exclude the option yet, to split the document in
> 3: One that is the inclusive "reference/architecture" document that
> we keep alive and extend with whatever we need to keep in common,
> and then 2 or maybe over time more protocol specification parts of
> the pieces we are adding.
I would call the third document the applicability statement for uses in
industry FOO.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
