Hi, It wouldn't make me apoplectic - but I think we have some understanding of what is meant by "architecture" and "framework" in the context of i2rs.
The individual framework draft talks about desired aspects of the i2rs solution and the scope of interfaces that are intended. An architecture draft, to my mind, would talk about the different entities using i2rs, the interactions with different protocols, and how i2rs can be used in different, well, architectures - so that Dmitri's draft is a very preliminary step in that direction. Thus - the framework is the skeleton of what is desired and required in i2rs, giving the scope and reasoning. Perhaps it should turn into a requirements draft? Alia On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
