Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

FWIW, some context. As we started to advance a number of I2NSF document we ran into a few problems: - Different documents used different terms for similar or identical concepts - Different documents used the same terms to mean different things - Different documents attempted to define the same

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

Hello Adrian, some comments inline. On 08/03/2017 12:18 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: FWIW, some context. As we started to advance a number of I2NSF document we ran into a few problems: - Different documents used different terms for similar or identical concepts - Different documents used the same

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

I wouldn't want a terminology document that is set in stone, by merging it into the framework document.I don't think the role of the framework document is to be the terminology standard for other documents.The last thing I would want is an argument in that a given effort is out of bounds

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

Thank you, all for the useful discussion. If the WG (and it seems to) feels strongly about a separate document, we can certainly publish this as a separate document. This discussion was helpful and will be if there is any pushback. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on list.

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

I disagree that creating a bis document for terminology changes is a good approach. This means that we are creating a bis document for content that is not inherently part of the framework document! John On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > Yoav and Adrian: > >

[I2nsf] 答复: WG Adoption call for draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02

Support. As the author of this draft, I am not aware any IPR of it. Thanks! 发件人: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Linda Dunbar 发送时间: 2017年8月3日 4:16 收件人: 'i2nsf@ietf.org' 抄送: draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capabil...@ietf.org; Yoav Nir 主题: [I2nsf] WG Adoption call for

[I2nsf] 答复: WG Adoption call for draft-jeong-i2nsf-applicability-01

Support adoption of this draft, which is a useful document to clarify the application of I2NSF protocol and IM/DM in different typical scenarios for NSF security policy management. 发件人: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Linda Dunbar 发送时间: 2017年8月3日 4:27 收件人: 'i2nsf@ietf.org' 抄送:

Re: [I2nsf] 答复: WG Adoption call for draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02

Hi all, I support the WG adoption of this draft. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul 2017. 8. 3. 오후 11:37에 "Xialiang (Frank)" 님이 작성: > Support. > > > > As the author of this draft, I am not aware any IPR of it. > > > > Thanks! > > > > *发件人:* I2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

Hello Sue :) I hope you are well! On 08/03/2017 02:24 PM, Susan Hares wrote: Yoav and Adrian: I agree with you that split the terminology is not a good way to go. As a solution to Yoav's problem, may I suggest the following: 1) publish the terminology information in the framework document,

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

Hi, Adrian. I tend to agree that splitting the terminology around to several small documents is not a good way to go. I think it should be OK to move the contents into the framework draft, perhaps as an appendix, with an appropriate paragraph saying that the terminology in this section is

Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

Yoav and Adrian: I agree with you that split the terminology is not a good way to go. As a solution to Yoav's problem, may I suggest the following: 1) publish the terminology information in the framework document, 2) Keep a WG draft for terms that change - this can create a bis document for