Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis

2016-10-24 Thread John Strassner 
I agree as well.

regards,
John

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Bob, Diego, all,
>
>
>
> This sounds like a plan to me.
>
>
>
> As for other docs making references, so long as those references are
> Informative and not Normative, it's fine. If, on the other hand, you find
> yourself relying on something (i.e., Normative reference) you will probably
> want to lift the text into your own document.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Moskowitz [mailto:r...@labs.htt-consult.com]
> *Sent:* 23 October 2016 02:17
> *To:* Diego R. Lopez; adr...@olddog.co.uk
> *Cc:* i2nsf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analy...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis
>
>
>
> I think we should keep the gap analysis current with what ever gaps still
> are present.  Maybe move addressed gaps to a 'handled' section of the
> draft.  This way we have a history of what the gap analysis drove to
> completion.  Once all gaps are handled THEN we let it expire.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2016 07:16 AM, Diego R. Lopez wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
> I tend to agree with you on this. Just let me note that some material of
> the gap analysis could be incorporated somewhere else, in the documents
> that reference it and are going to follow the path to RFC. I’d like the
> authors of those documents consider the possibility if we finally agree to
> go as you suggest.
>
>
>
> Be goode,
>
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2016, at 23:19 , Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi I2NSF,
>
> Our charter says...
>
>
> The I2NSF working group's deliverables include:
>
> o A single document covering use cases, problem statement, and gap
>   analysis document. This document will initially be produced for reference
>   as a living list to track and record discussions: the working group may
>   decide to not publish this document as an RFC.
>
>
> We split this work into draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases  and
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis.
>
> It looks to me that the Problem Statement and Use Cases document is
> something
> that the WG wants to push to RFC (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I
> am less
> certain about the Gap Analysis.
>
> While the Gap Analysis is good work and has definitely helped us
> understand our
> direction, I don't see a lot of value in publishing it as an RFC. My
> proposal
> is, therefore, to keep it alive as a WG draft while it is useful reference
> material, and then to let it expire. Expired drafts still remain available
> in
> the IETF Tools repository, so it would not be lost forever.
>
> What do you all think?
> Does someone have a strong reason to publish it as an RFC?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian (per pro Linda)
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>
>
> --
> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>
> Dr Diego R. Lopez
> Telefonica I+D
> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
>
> e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com
> Tel:+34 913 129 041
> Mobile: +34 682 051 091
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Moskowitz
> Owner
> HTT Consulting
> C:  248-219-2059
> F:  248-968-2824
> E:  r...@labs.htt-consult.com
>
> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets
> the credit
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>


-- 
regards,
John
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis

2016-10-24 Thread Adrian Farrel 
Hi Bob, Diego, all,
 
This sounds like a plan to me.
 
As for other docs making references, so long as those references are 
Informative and not Normative, it's fine. If, on the other hand, you find 
yourself relying on something (i.e., Normative reference) you will probably 
want to lift the text into your own document.
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:r...@labs.htt-consult.com] 
Sent: 23 October 2016 02:17
To: Diego R. Lopez; adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analy...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with 
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis
 
I think we should keep the gap analysis current with what ever gaps still are 
present.  Maybe move addressed gaps to a 'handled' section of the draft.  This 
way we have a history of what the gap analysis drove to completion.  Once all 
gaps are handled THEN we let it expire.
 
Bob
 
On 10/22/2016 07:16 AM, Diego R. Lopez wrote:
Hi Adrian, 
 
I tend to agree with you on this. Just let me note that some material of the 
gap analysis could be incorporated somewhere else, in the documents that 
reference it and are going to follow the path to RFC. I’d like the authors of 
those documents consider the possibility if we finally agree to go as you 
suggest.
 
Be goode,
 
On 11 Oct 2016, at 23:19 , Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
 
Hi I2NSF,

Our charter says...



The I2NSF working group's deliverables include:

o A single document covering use cases, problem statement, and gap
  analysis document. This document will initially be produced for reference
  as a living list to track and record discussions: the working group may 
  decide to not publish this document as an RFC.

We split this work into draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases  and
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis.

It looks to me that the Problem Statement and Use Cases document is something
that the WG wants to push to RFC (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I am less
certain about the Gap Analysis.

While the Gap Analysis is good work and has definitely helped us understand our
direction, I don't see a lot of value in publishing it as an RFC. My proposal
is, therefore, to keep it alive as a WG draft while it is useful reference
material, and then to let it expire. Expired drafts still remain available in
the IETF Tools repository, so it would not be lost forever.

What do you all think?
Does someone have a strong reason to publish it as an RFC?

Thanks,
Adrian (per pro Linda)

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
 
--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com
Tel:+34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
--
 
 
-- 
Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:  248-219-2059
F:  248-968-2824
E:  r...@labs.htt-consult.com

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the 
credit
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis

2016-10-22 Thread Robert Moskowitz 
I think we should keep the gap analysis current with what ever gaps 
still are present.  Maybe move addressed gaps to a 'handled' section of 
the draft.  This way we have a history of what the gap analysis drove to 
completion.  Once all gaps are handled THEN we let it expire.



Bob


On 10/22/2016 07:16 AM, Diego R. Lopez wrote:

Hi Adrian,

I tend to agree with you on this. Just let me note that some material 
of the gap analysis could be incorporated somewhere else, in the 
documents that reference it and are going to follow the path to RFC. 
I’d like the authors of those documents consider the possibility if we 
finally agree to go as you suggest.


Be goode,

On 11 Oct 2016, at 23:19 , Adrian Farrel > wrote:


Hi I2NSF,

Our charter says...


The I2NSF working group's deliverables include:

o A single document covering use cases, problem statement, and gap
  analysis document. This document will initially be produced for 
reference
  as a living list to track and record discussions: the working 
group may

  decide to not publish this document as an RFC.


We split this work into draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases  and
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis.

It looks to me that the Problem Statement and Use Cases document is 
something
that the WG wants to push to RFC (please correct me if I'm wrong), 
but I am less

certain about the Gap Analysis.

While the Gap Analysis is good work and has definitely helped us 
understand our
direction, I don't see a lot of value in publishing it as an RFC. My 
proposal
is, therefore, to keep it alive as a WG draft while it is useful 
reference
material, and then to let it expire. Expired drafts still remain 
available in

the IETF Tools repository, so it would not be lost forever.

What do you all think?
Does someone have a strong reason to publish it as an RFC?

Thanks,
Adrian (per pro Linda)

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf


--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com
Tel:+34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
--



--
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:r...@labs.htt-consult.com

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] Thinking about what to do with draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis

2016-10-22 Thread Diego R. Lopez 
Hi Adrian,

I tend to agree with you on this. Just let me note that some material of the 
gap analysis could be incorporated somewhere else, in the documents that 
reference it and are going to follow the path to RFC. I’d like the authors of 
those documents consider the possibility if we finally agree to go as you 
suggest.

Be goode,

On 11 Oct 2016, at 23:19 , Adrian Farrel 
> wrote:

Hi I2NSF,

Our charter says...

The I2NSF working group's deliverables include:

o A single document covering use cases, problem statement, and gap
  analysis document. This document will initially be produced for reference
  as a living list to track and record discussions: the working group may
  decide to not publish this document as an RFC.

We split this work into draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases  and
draft-ietf-i2nsf-gap-analysis.

It looks to me that the Problem Statement and Use Cases document is something
that the WG wants to push to RFC (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I am less
certain about the Gap Analysis.

While the Gap Analysis is good work and has definitely helped us understand our
direction, I don't see a lot of value in publishing it as an RFC. My proposal
is, therefore, to keep it alive as a WG draft while it is useful reference
material, and then to let it expire. Expired drafts still remain available in
the IETF Tools repository, so it would not be lost forever.

What do you all think?
Does someone have a strong reason to publish it as an RFC?

Thanks,
Adrian (per pro Linda)

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com
Tel:+34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
--

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf