Hello Sue :)
I hope you are well!
On 08/03/2017 02:24 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
Yoav and Adrian:
I agree with you that split the terminology is not a good way to go. As a
solution to Yoav's problem, may I suggest the following:
1) publish the terminology information in the framework document,
2) Keep a WG draft for terms that change - this can create a bis document for
the framework document when we have completed all the rest of the work,
The meta-goal here is to safe "IESG cycles", if I understand it
correctly? Is the - eventually inevitable - creation of a bis document
less effort than maintaining a separate terminology document?
Viele Grüße,
Henk
Cheerily,
Sue hares
-----Original Message-----
From: Yoav Nir [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 7:27 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: '[email protected]'; [email protected]; 'Kathleen Moriarty'
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from
draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?
Hi, Adrian.
I tend to agree that splitting the terminology around to several small
documents is not a good way to go.
I think it should be OK to move the contents into the framework draft, perhaps
as an appendix, with an appropriate paragraph saying that the terminology in
this section is meant for the entire document set of I2NSF and some of the
terms are not used in this (the framework) document.
There is one potential issue with doing it this way. We intend to get the framework
document published soonish. So if we add the terminology there, it gets published in an
RFC and gets "set in stone". While it's always possible to add new terms
afterwards, it gets messy to change the meaning of existing terms already defined in the
RFC.
Are we willing to accept this risk/constraint of future work?
Yoav
On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 11:18 +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
FWIW, some context.
As we started to advance a number of I2NSF document we ran into a few problems:
- Different documents used different terms for similar or identical
concepts
- Different documents used the same terms to mean different things
- Different documents attempted to define the same terms, but actually
introduced
discrepancies in the definitions
- Documents started to acquire circular normative dependencies on each
other
- Documents made best efforts to duplicate definition text but were not kept
up-to-date and in synch
The terminology document was introduced as a way to provide one single point of
reference for all terms and to ensure consistency.
Of course, I don't mind what solution to this purely non-technical
issue is used so long as it adequately addresses all of the needs. And
if the IESG has cycles to burn to work out how to publish terminology
definitions without causing ambiguity or confusion, then it is fine
with me that they do that (it will keep them from doing harm in the
technical areas where they might not have the expertise to do the
right thing :-)
But there are three concerns that I have:
1. Moving *some* of the definitions from the terminology draft to another draft will
leave behind other terms. That is to say, not all the terms currently in the terminology
draft are currently used in just one other draft. So there will be an annoying and messy
period of working out where the terms need to be moved to. Alternatively, the whole of
the terminology draft should be subsumed into some other foundational document
notwithstanding that that other document does not use those terms - that sounds easy, but
I bet there will be review comments that say "delete this term because it is not
used in this document."
2. When new drafts are written there needs to be a central place to go to find
the right term to use to prevent invention of new terms or re-invention of
existing terms.
3. When a WG or document authors find themselves doing "whatever is necessary to get
a document published" they are making pointless concessions to the arbitrary rules
of Discusses placed on them by the IESG which risks over-running community consensus.
That is, of course, a socio-political matter, and I don't expect the WG to engage on it,
but individuals who care about the IETF might want to think it through.
I'm not really working on this stuff anymore, so this email really is only for
context and to help you understand how we got to where we are.
Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: I2nsf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kathleen
Moriarty
Sent: 02 August 2017 20:17
To: John Strassner
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
draft-ietf-i2nsf- [email protected]; Yoav Nir; Linda Dunbar
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content
from draft-ietf- i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?
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.ht
ml
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
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
