On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:49:01PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Thanks Much Thomas! Given that I was the victim of considerable back-door > escalations and machinations, I was giving myself a ?cooling off? period > prior responding. However, you expressed my sentiments with much more > patience than I could have myself. Moving forward, we are going to have to > agree on a home for these protocol models drafts. Of course, my preference > would be to keep them in the protocol WGs with I2RS and I2RS review.
Speaking ex oficio, I2RS is aware that protocol work MUST of necessity happen in the individually appropriate working groups. There is a strong need to avoid re-inventing various modeling constructs simply to satisfy the I2RS use case. This means that there's incentive for I2RS WG members to participate in a given WGs design efforts. Much like writing software, if we end up with copy and pasted content between modules, we've probably done it wrong. We may want to spend a portion of the upcoming rtg-area meeting discussing how to coordinate these efforts. As mentioned earlier in-thread, we've had discussions with Benoit and the netmod chairs about some form of this. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
