On 1/27/2015 11:49 AM, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
Hi Joe
...
I understand your point of view about wanting to bundle both
informational and architectural aspects in the document.
However, I have a different experience: in AUTOCONF we tried to do
exactly that (i.e. bundle both informational and architectural aspects
in the document), but never converged, partly because we did not have
such an informational document to refer to -- to keep the discussion
"grounded". I say: let's not make the same mistake twice. Let's first
agree on how to describe what we observed, then publish a document on
that. Until then, experience shows we are not ready to debate on
applicable architectures.
Architecture can still be informational.
Regardless, though, it sounds like this is a repeat of AUTOCONF even if
you split the docs. If you can't present these issues in existing terms
OR explain clearly and convincingly why new terms are needed, you won't
ground the discussion here either.
Whether these are one doc or two won't save you from that fate.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
