Hi Bob, Diego, all, This sounds like a plan to me. As for other docs making references, so long as those references are Informative and not Normative, it's fine. If, on the other hand, you find yourself relying on something (i.e., Normative reference) you will probably want to lift the text into your own document. Thanks, Adrian From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 October 2016 02:17 To: Diego R. Lopez; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis I think we should keep the gap analysis current with what ever gaps still are present. Maybe move addressed gaps to a 'handled' section of the draft. This way we have a history of what the gap analysis drove to completion. Once all gaps are handled THEN we let it expire. Bob On 10/22/2016 07:16 AM, Diego R. Lopez wrote: Hi Adrian, I tend to agree with you on this. Just let me note that some material of the gap analysis could be incorporated somewhere else, in the documents that reference it and are going to follow the path to RFC. I’d like the authors of those documents consider the possibility if we finally agree to go as you suggest. Be goode, On 11 Oct 2016, at 23:19 , Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: Hi I2NSF,
Our charter says... The I2NSF working group's deliverables include: o A single document covering use cases, problem statement, and gap analysis document. This document will initially be produced for reference as a living list to track and record discussions: the working group may decide to not publish this document as an RFC. We split this work into draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases and draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis. It looks to me that the Problem Statement and Use Cases document is something that the WG wants to push to RFC (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I am less certain about the Gap Analysis. While the Gap Analysis is good work and has definitely helped us understand our direction, I don't see a lot of value in publishing it as an RFC. My proposal is, therefore, to keep it alive as a WG draft while it is useful reference material, and then to let it expire. Expired drafts still remain available in the IETF Tools repository, so it would not be lost forever. What do you all think? Does someone have a strong reason to publish it as an RFC? Thanks, Adrian (per pro Linda) _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf -- "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" Dr Diego R. Lopez Telefonica I+D http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/ e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +34 913 129 041 Mobile: +34 682 051 091 ---------------------------------- -- Robert Moskowitz Owner HTT Consulting C: 248-219-2059 F: 248-968-2824 E: [email protected] There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
