On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 02:55:21PM -0400, Joe Clarke wrote: > On 9/25/14 2:00 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > >Your chairs have been a bit over-busy recently with travel to unicast people > >doing various bits of chartered work. This means we've been behind on some > >of our goals in terms of getting regular design sessions running. I know > >that at least a couple calls have happened that I've missed that Sue Hares > >has done, so some progress is being made. > > > >We've requested a 1 hour time slot for IETF 91 in Honolulu to give us a > >chance to talk. This is a call for agenda slots. > > > >This is also a call for status reports. > > > >We've had some productive discussion about requests to netmod/netconf, > >albeit ones that haven't converged yet. > > > >What have you been up to? > > I think the list knows about the traceability "shoe" that's been > waiting to drop. Question is, can it be settled on the list, should > we ask in Honolulu? Does it need an agenda item or can the chairs > raise the point? Thanks.
This chair admits he's been a slacker even though oversubscribed. One of the reasons why this has been left to linger slightly is the detail that we've left the architecture document unpublished as an RFC to permit some time to reconcile the ephemeral datastore question. The answer to that question may have impact on the architecture. Aside from that, the document is past WGLC and was ready to be submitted for publication. Since the architecture draft is still open, do you believe that the traceability draft should be incorporated into the architecture document or left separately? This question obviously is for the WG to answer. Once we have that answer, we'll either look for the edits to the architecture or simply do an adoption call. We saw good support for the idea that traceability is something we should have. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
