On 9/29/14 5:25 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
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that we've left the architecture document unpublished as an RFC to permit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.
We (the authors) believe this is a separate document based on the
previous comments. Aside from the open questions concerning the
ephemeral data stores, we still feel the architecture draft is
well-baked and sets the stage nicely for this additional document.
However, as you point out, this is a question for the WG to answer.
But, should we ask it in Honolulu via an agenda item, or is this
something the chairs will ask in a general agenda section (as was kind
of done in Toronto)?
Joe
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
