Hi my comments in line,
>> Same old discussion about framework versus architecture. >> So you included the two terms to make me happy? ;-) >> >> The I2RS working group works to develop a framework and architecture >> that will enable specific use cases, and lead to an understanding of the >> informational models and requirements for encodings and protocols for >> the I2RS interfaces. >> >> And now, we have a new term: architecture framework >> >> Jul 2013 : Request publication of an Informational document defining the >> architecture framework >> >> I don't understand how you could have this "architecture framework" >> before the use cases? >> IMHO, the framework and architecture terms are not suitable. What you're >> after is the explanation of the required building blocks in the use case >> document(s). I agree the use case should be clear in the doc before the framework, >> >> And then, the framework or architecture (pick up the term you want) will >> explain: >> to solve the use cases A, B, C, we need the building blocks D, E, F, with >> the interfaces G, H, I, the data model J, K, L, and the protocol M. >> However, that document will only exist in the next charter I tried to explain that we should not follow documents in charter, but follow approaches, however, the group wanted another way, >> 3; >> During the BoF, many use cases were discussed. >> You asked: do we want to limit the use cases? Answer: yes >> You asked: is 3 a reasonable number? Answer: yes >> So how many do you have? It's not clear from the bullet points below " - >> Tightly scoped key use cases for operational use of I2RS as follows:" > I agree to have 3 clear main use cases that can start the works' flow for this year, > We agree that the whole point of making such a list is that it will keep us > away from ocean-boiling. We also agreed that I-Ds for other use cases would > not be considered by the WG under this charter. > > Lastly we discussed how many RFCs might result from this list. My answer was > that the worst case is 6 (one for each use case), but that it is possible > (even likely) that authors would combine their work. It is too early to tell > definitively which use cases might end up in a combined document (maybe all, > maybe none), and there is nothing to say in the charter except for the > existing statement about not adding to the use cases without rechartering. If that is the situation then we need to specify those 6 or so cases, or rechartering is a good idea in future, AB > >> COMMENT: >> >> EDITORIAL: >> >> "Collocated" and "with the with" in >> >> While processes participating in the routing system are often colocated >> with the with local forwarding elements, this isn't a necessary >> condition. > > Yup. > Thanks. > > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
