On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Tony Li wrote:
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.
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.
Ok, that's clear, thanks.
I have two concerns about the ILNP docs:
a) Editorial: I think they perhaps could be re-organised for
additional clarity. In particular, there isn't a single, cohesive
description of ILNP. There are important bits and details spread
over the 4 docs.
b) Architecture: I have the feeling there are some rather important
questions unanswered (e.g. around state), which should either be
addressed or perhaps noted as being TBD, as you suggest.
I don't know if these concerns are significant enough that they need
to be addressed before publication as RRG product, given the
objectives/constraints you describe.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Would you people stop playing these stupid games?!?!?!!!!
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
