Brian: We took this approach initial, but ran into an operational issue with this approach.
The specifying documents include: 1) architecture and 2) requirements for protocols and data models, and 3) informational data model. In judging these models, people felt overwhelmed. In review, they felt them needed the short document that would introduce in I2RS approach. Cheerily, Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:23 PM To: The IESG Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [i2rs] Brian Haberman's Abstain on draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: (with COMMENT) Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: Abstain When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My position on these types of documents should be pretty clear at this point. The parts that do have archival value should be published as a part of a protocol specification or architecture document. _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
