+1 -----邮件原件----- 发件人: John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2017年8月4日 0:29 收件人: Susan Hares 抄送: Yoav Nir; Adrian Farrel; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kathleen Moriarty 主题: Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?
I disagree that creating a bis document for terminology changes is a good approach. This means that we are creating a bis document for content that is not inherently part of the framework document! John On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> 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, > > 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 _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
