John, Thank you very much for the suggestion of only porting the terminologies that are used by Framework into the draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft. That is really good suggestion.
We can still keep the Terminology draft as WG draft. Linda From: John Strassner Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 12:52 PM To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <[email protected]>; Yoav Nir <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft? 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]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Yoav Nir <[email protected]<mailto:[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.
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
