Are you proposing that 'architecture' and 'high-level architecture' mean two separate things? If yes, I think that's going to make it awkward to discuss. If no, I'm not sure why the qualifier 'high-level' is needed.
I'll go back and hide under my bridge now.... eric > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Adrian Farrel > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:16 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [i2rs] Potential charter tweak > > Hi, > > One of the ADs doing a final review of the draft charter is struggling with > the > difference or overlap between 'architecture' and 'framework'. In response to a > previous comment from him (saying he did not see how an architecture could > be written before the solution specs) I inserted the term "high-level". He now > says... > > > You mentioned "high-level" in "High-level architecture and framework". > > That's a step in the right direction. > > Personally, I would change all instances of "High-level architecture > > and framework" to "High-level architecture" > > Personally, I can't see that this would make any difference. I only like > "architecture and framework" because it kills the discussion of "Is this an > architecture document or is it a framework document?" So I could make his > change without feeling too depressed. > > Would this cause anyone a peptic ulcer? > > 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
