On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:07:04AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Now I understand your confusion. > Putting aside the abstract, I thought we were focused om task 1 > (from the charter) in writing. I think we probably crept into task > 2, resulting in a document which is confusing about its scope.
In general, we should avoid trying to say "we're re-using <foo>" too much in the architecture draft. As we've seen from the long (very long) discussions on potential protocol tweaks to enable I2RS applications on existing IETF protocols, we know this is tricky to bring to some sort of consensus. Benoit, I think the other half of this challenge is in many cases we mention other IETF technologies because they provide example components of things we might be able to use. By their example, we get a huge amount of semantic help with what is covered, with the downfall of some amount of "you probably don't want this component". I think the advantages of drawing analogies to existing techs outweighs the issues of saying "we *are* (re-)using this technology". Given the above, are there specific changes you'd recommend that allow us to continue to get semantic leverage out of any references we have to existing techs? -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
