Re: [Anima] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

[Michael H. Behringer]

  
  
On 25/10/2018 05:21, Spencer Dawkins at
  IETF wrote:


  
  Hi, Brian,

  
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 PM Brian E
  Carpenter 
  wrote:

Hi
  Spencer,
  On 2018-10-25 15:54, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
  ...
  
  >
  --
  > COMMENT:
  >
  --
  > 
  > I'm confused here ...
  > 
  >   This document describes a first, simple,
  implementable phase of an
  >    Autonomic Networking solution.  It is expected
  that the experience
  >    from this phase will be used in defining updated
  and extended
  >    specifications over time.  Some topics are
  considered architecturally
  >    in this document, but are not yet reflected in the
  implementation
  >    specifications.  They are marked with an (*).
  > 
  > This is true now, but when this document is approved,
  will it be published
  > immediately (in which case, this is "truth decay",
  because it becomes less true
  > in the unchanging RFC every time a topic is reflected
  in implementation
  > specifications), or will it be held until all the
  (*)s are stable?
  
  The intention is to publish it now; the (*) items are FFS
  (for further study)
  in ITU or ISO speak. Should we make the last sentence
  explicit?:
  
  They are marked with an (*) and are intended for further
  study.



Thanks for the quick reply. 


I think that would be an improvement, but if it was
  clear that there's a reason to include them in a document
  being published now, that might be useful to include. 


If it's possible that some of these items might be
  significantly re-thought after further study, or even
  dropped, that seems unhelpful to a reader in five years. 

  

  


Thanks for the thoughts, Spencer. I sort of see that we might end up
with a situation where one of those (*) topics completely disappears
in 5 years, in which case it might indeed look odd. 

However, the RFCs come with a publication date. I think it'll then
be clear that 5 years ago, we were thinking in a different
direction, but that over time, the views changed. 

Personally, I find it very interesting to read in older documents
why certain things were done or not done, considered or not
considered, even if things change later on. 

So, I would trust the future reader to understand that this is
context at the time of publishing the RFC, and might have changed
since. And I think we could well live with that. My suggestion:
Leave. 

Michael


  

  


Spencer
 

     Brian
  

  

  


  


___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Re: [Anima] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF]

Hi, Brian,

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
> On 2018-10-25 15:54, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> ...
>
> > --
> > COMMENT:
> > --
> >
> > I'm confused here ...
> >
> >   This document describes a first, simple, implementable phase of an
> >Autonomic Networking solution.  It is expected that the experience
> >from this phase will be used in defining updated and extended
> >specifications over time.  Some topics are considered architecturally
> >in this document, but are not yet reflected in the implementation
> >specifications.  They are marked with an (*).
> >
> > This is true now, but when this document is approved, will it be
> published
> > immediately (in which case, this is "truth decay", because it becomes
> less true
> > in the unchanging RFC every time a topic is reflected in implementation
> > specifications), or will it be held until all the (*)s are stable?
>
> The intention is to publish it now; the (*) items are FFS (for further
> study)
> in ITU or ISO speak. Should we make the last sentence explicit?:
>
> They are marked with an (*) and are intended for further study.
>

Thanks for the quick reply.

I think that would be an improvement, but if it was clear that there's a
reason to include them in a document being published now, that might be
useful to include.

If it's possible that some of these items might be significantly re-thought
after further study, or even dropped, that seems unhelpful to a reader in
five years.

Spencer


>Brian
>
>
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Re: [Anima] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

[Brian E Carpenter]

Hi Spencer,
On 2018-10-25 15:54, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

 
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
> 
> I'm confused here ...
> 
>   This document describes a first, simple, implementable phase of an
>Autonomic Networking solution.  It is expected that the experience
>from this phase will be used in defining updated and extended
>specifications over time.  Some topics are considered architecturally
>in this document, but are not yet reflected in the implementation
>specifications.  They are marked with an (*).
> 
> This is true now, but when this document is approved, will it be published
> immediately (in which case, this is "truth decay", because it becomes less 
> true
> in the unchanging RFC every time a topic is reflected in implementation
> specifications), or will it be held until all the (*)s are stable?

The intention is to publish it now; the (*) items are FFS (for further study)
in ITU or ISO speak. Should we make the last sentence explicit?:

They are marked with an (*) and are intended for further study.

   Brian

___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima