At 9:27 AM -0800 3/4/02, Alex Zinin wrote:
>Frank,
>
> I'm working on technical comments, should be able to
> send them out within a week or so.
>
> Aside from that, it appeared to me that there was sufficient
> amount of editorial work that had to be done before I would
> think about initiating a last call type of action for
> this document.
Agreed that some pure edit is needed. With all due respect, I'm
working on a new set of comments myself, and I keep finding things
that seem to be missing in a section, but find them a page later. It
may be my writing/reading style is top-down and Frank's is bottom-up,
and the more I read it, the more I'll get used to it.
The criticism has been made that the Group B documents focus too much
on the present. Indeed, we accepted some criticism on that and split
off the history as a separate document. At the same time, I believe
there needs to be awareness of current requirements so that we don't
wind up with an architecture that requires a flag day conversion.
Not all of my colleagues agree with me, but I am of the firm opinion
that we need a good set of requirements before we can make any
architectural decisions. I did suggest that various communities be
solicited on their future requirements, much as was done for IPng,
but was told that was an IETF problem rather than an IRTF mission.
Nevertheless, I find a good deal of blur in both documents between
requirements and architecture. IMHO, there might be benefit to
formally separating documents for requirements and architecture, not
presupposing whether these are done by group A + B, A, B, or X.
>
> Also, did you guys discuss the possibility of merging work
> with the other group? I'd rather see this happening here
> and now than confuse the consumers with two independent
> documents and have them make the judgement calls. Besides,
> the merger work should generate a set of quite interesting
> discussions that I'm sure everyone would benefit from...
Speaking as a Lowly Coauthor and not an Esteemed Editor or Equally
Esteemed Co-editor :-), this wasn't my call, and I'm actually
confused myself on how things will progress. Arguments have been made
both ways -- stir comments in the general community with two
documents, or try to reconcile the two. This decision will be made, I
assume, above my non-pay grade.
>
>--
>Alex Zinin
>
>Monday, March 04, 2002, 5:49:31 AM, Kastenholz, Frank wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>
>> A while ago I sent out a note
>> saying that the requirements sub-group
>> has produced a not-quite-an-internet-draft
>> document. We've received little in the way
>> of commentary. Does that mean we should get
>> it published as an RFC?
>
>> I'd like to close this out and move on to bigger
>> and better things :-)
>> The document is available at http://partners.unispherenetworks.com/rrg
>> and it's version 4 (the last one on the index page) that we'd
>> like reviewed.
>
> > Frank Kastenholz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT