Hi Paul,
>> started down that path. Second, all of these proposals are products of the >> RRG. > > What are the constraints and objectives here for such documents? The constraints are pretty much set forth in RFC 5743. In addition, documents should reflect something that the group has already discussed. Further, we strongly would like to get RG consensus that the document is in a state where it should be published. Note that this is not an endorsement of the content, but consensus that the quality of the document is sufficient to be a product of the RG. > Specifically, is there a time constraint at play; and how polished should the > proposals be? For the latter part: are we aiming for general, rough idea kind > of docs, with it being acceptable to leave some thorny questions to be > thrashed out by IETF, if it's interested; or should all the big questions be > answered? There are no hard time constraints, however, at some point, the RRG will take up new questions, with new chairs. We need to be done before that, as new chairs will not be interested in cleaning up after us. I cannot tell you specifically when that change will be, as that is the decision of the IRTF Chair. Certainly the energy level necessary to publish a document after that point in time will be significantly higher. The documents themselves are research contributions. They are not expected to be engineering specifications and as such, can omit a great deal of detail if they so choose. Certainly thorny questions can be deferred to the IETF. Since these are supposed to be architectural proposals, it's best that the architectural questions be answered, but it is not unreasonable if certain topics are discussed and described as areas for further research. Is that clear? Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
