Thanks Jeff. If others can live with it, I can live with the simplified
phrasing you propose for the definition.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/17/16 8:15 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
Joel,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:55:55PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
On the editorial matters, the edit to the definition of I2RS Plane
seems somewhat off. I understand why you did not like referring to
it as the environment for the "process", particularly since there
are multiple "processes" involved. But one does not run an
"architecture" in an environment either. How about defining it as
"The environment the I2RS components" are running on."? Or maybe
"The connected set of I2RS components" since the I2RS Plane is
really that communication, not the underlay.
I must admit to not having the best set of suggested wording here. The main
thing that seemed wrong was the use of processes in the context of UNIX and
there's no guarantee that such an ecosystem is used to instantiate I2RS.
One suggestion may be to simply scrub the "flavor of UNIX" from the text and
simply continue to use "processes", perhaps being a bit more careful to
define what that means in context.
It is a bit awkward for either the authors or the WG to review the
other notes, as apparently they are in the git but not in the diff
(since they are only in the XML.)
Fair point. I am attaching the .xml. I am also attaching a form of the
rfcdiff wherein the XXX comments have been exposed. I am not pushing that
altered .xml in order to let you authors have a clean bit of xml to use for
your edits.
(Note that I encourage the authors to work from the git repository. It
makes further rounds of edits easier.)
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
