Hi John, As a standalone document, the terminology draft is a support document. The IESG issued the following statement on support documents: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.html
I have no problem helping a WG to publish support documents, but would like them to think through what they are doing. We typically see terminology as part of a main document for a WG and not a draft by itself. If it's part of a standards track document (appendix or terminology section), then there is no question on it's value. You may want to take a look at the ballots for the WG documents that have gone through the IESG to date and you'll see the types of issues. Mainly it is the time/resources spent publishing such documents. I'd like to see the terminology published in some document, but not necessarily as a stand alone document. Best regards, Kathleen On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Strassner <[email protected]> wrote: > I expressed some minor concerns before, and will do so again. > > > > · What is the reasoning against publishing an INFORMATIONAL RFC for > terminology? > > · Many of the terms in the current terminology draft are not used in > the framework draft > > o This is because the terminology draft was originally conceived to work > for many diverse subject areas > > o The framework draft will not cover some of these diverse subjects in > detail, and hence, does not need those terms; including them will make the > reading awkward at best > > · Thus, I would recommend > > o We keep the current terminology draft until these other subject areas > mature and have WG-adopted drafts (a possible alternative is putting them on > the wiki; I am not a big fan of wikis) > > o We move the appropriate terms into appropriate drafts > > § Note: this will cause duplication of terms – yet another reason to keep > the terminology draft > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > From: I2nsf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 10:31 AM > To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <[email protected]>; Yoav Nir > <[email protected]> > Subject: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft? > > > > I2NSF participants: > > > > During the IETF99 I2NSF Session, our AD Kathleen said that the current IESG > doesn’t like to have RFC for Terminology only drafts. So we should consider > merging the content of Terminology with other drafts. I2NSF framework draft > would be a nature place to have the terminologies. > > > > If you have any objections or concerns of merging the content from > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft, please > express them to the I2NSF mailing list. > > > > Thanks, Linda & Yoav. > > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
