I agree. As the gap analysis draft is not to be published, I would probably try to integrate some very clarifying text/figure into the problem and use case draft.
Yours, Daniel On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > We have a charter action and milestone to decide whether to publish our > work as > RFCs or not. The milestone reads: > > > WG decides whether to progress adopted drafts for publication as RFCs > (use > cases, > > framework, information model, and examination of existing secure > communication > > mechanisms) > > We had some (light) conversations on the list and arrived at the following > position, I think. This is your chance to scream if you disagree - > otherwise, > this is the email of record documenting our plan. > > use cases > draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases > Pursue publication > > framework > draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework > Pursue publication > > information model > Not yet clear, but some feeling that we should publish. > Pending adoption and more work. > > gap analysis for protocols > draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis > Do not publish > Keep draft alive for as long as it is useful, then archive > > requirements for protocol extensions > Covered as part of draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00 > Pursue publication > > examination of existing secure communication mechanisms > Aim to add this to draft-ietf-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-req-00 > Pursue publication > > terminology > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology > Pursue publication > > Cheers, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
