Hi, John > On 2 Nov 2017, at 7:08, John Strassner <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip/> > Second, my worry is that draft-kumar is not ready. It is not an information > model; rather, it is (at best) requirements that could be turned into an > information model. In addition, it needs to be integrated with the existing > capability draft. Note that it is absolutely essential that we only have a > single information model. Having multiple information models is akin to > having multiple dictionaries; what inevitably happens is that the same > concept is defined in multiple conflicting ways. I suggest that this document > be examined in more detail to determine how best to proceed. I have already > talked to Frank about that. I’d like to point out that a draft that gets adopted does not need to be ready for publication. It only needs to be good enough to be a starting point for work by the working group. At present, draft-kumar is the product of its seven authors. They can put whatever they want in this document and they don’t need anyone to agree to any changes. What adoption changes is that the group gets change control, so if the group decides that the IM should be added in this draft, that is what happens; and if the group decides that it should be merged with the capabilities draft, that is fine as well. It is not the usual way to have a working group work on an individual draft. If we want to work on this, we adopt it and make it ready. We don’t wait for individual authors to make their draft ready for publications and then adopt it followed immediately by working group last call. I agree that we may want to spend some time on the list of documents before adopting them, but getting to start work on the content of these documents is what this group is chartered to do. Yoav
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
