On 1/27/2015 10:10 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > Hi Joe > > Le 27 janv. 2015 18:08, "Joe Touch" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : >> >> >> >> On 1/27/2015 8:45 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: >>> >>> Hi Joe >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> It's far too early to discuss whether this doc could *become* a >>> useful WG doc; in it's current form, there's simply no hint of that >>> yet. IMO, the authors should take another shot at it, and then we >>> can see if there's really anything useful to pursue here. The >>> current doc does NOT make that case yet. >>> >>> Can you be more specific? >> >> >> I've tried. If what I've said so far isn't sufficient, then the draft > needs substantial revision and we'll see from there. >> >> Again, the onus is on the draft to be clear. >> > > The draft is rather clear,
Clearness is determined by the reader, and as a reader I've already indicated how and why that is not true. > but you are arguing that it is unuseful > because it should include architectural considerations. Others say it is > useful without architectural considerations. > > This is not necessarily a conflict. Why not have architectural > considerations in another, subsequent draft? This draft is - at best - setup to an arch considerations doc. It's a preface, an intro - maybe just a definitions section. There's no point to it without the arch part. ... >> Please tell us something we haven't known and dealt with for decades. >> > > If everything is common knowledge since ages, why don't we have an > obvious ref to point to, with a link model people agree on? We do (PILC and some of the other docs already cited). You claim that it's insufficient, so again the onus is on you to *prove* that's true. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
