On 13 Mar 2013, at 03:32, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm curious as to why Michael's comments garnered only a single reply—I think > he raised some good points.
The question is whether no one agrees. There have been previous comments that the text both in this section and in general is OK. > I've been reviewing the architecture document, and it's a hard read. I > think it's actually pretty good in principle, and I know that part of the > reason it's so heavy is because the authors are trying to represent a > plurality of opinions, including my own. I think that's fair comment as to why the document is the way it is. It's very difficult to be concise when there are so many views and comments being made. It can be pruned further for sure if you/the chairs want that. I noticed when reviewing the text to see if the hipnet draft was compliant or not that it is indeed hard to spot the requirements/principles. I asked previously if bullet-point requirements would help, but note we previously had enumerated requirements/principles (which I thought were very clear and made the text much easier to glance through) but the WG requested these were instead presented as plain text paragraphs/wording. We could restore bullet-point notes in each section, whether numbered or not. Another option is to add some kind of summary section listing them. > But in a lot of cases I think it would improve the document to pare it fairly > heavily—to try to tease out the essence of what everyone wants, and then > leave out the details of how they propose to get it. The architecture > should be what we want, not how we propose to get it. We don't all agree on > how to get it, and perhaps those questions should be addressed separately. It was always agreed that the specifics pointing to 'drafts in progress' would be trimmed in the final version, along with change notes. These have been left in as 'discussion pointers' while the architecture text is live. I've noted to removed these in the candidate -08. > I can offer more detailed comments, but it would be a pretty big message, > which nobody would feel enthusiastic about reading. Well, you could wait for a -08 resulting from last call, or make them now... Tim _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
