Re: [6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 6:29 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Pascal,
>
> See below.
>
> > On 7. Aug 2019, at 20:31, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Mirja
> >
> > It certainly does not hurt to have a second look at how the split was
> done and why.
> >
> > With one exception - the DetNet Architecture - the references fall in
> the category of solutions which is a level below this spec in the design
> cascade.
> >
> > They explain how things are done when this spec tries to limit at what
> gets done and tries to be complete at it. We can point on the solution
> specs because we only publish once the work is mostly done as opposed to a
> as a preamble to the work like in the case of DetNet. Then again that was a
> conscious decision be the group which is more of an integrator than a
> creator.
> >
> > From that perspective only the DetNet Architecture would be normative,
> the other specs playing at a different level and not needed for
> understanding things at Architecture level.
> >
> > OTOH it would be grand for this spec to reference RFCs as opposed to
> drafts. That would help the reader. But then there are many solution draft
> and we could keep building new ones forever.
> >
> > I’m unsure what you mean by strongly wrt the fragment drafts. They have
> a purpose and the Architecture describes that purpose. Since it has an
> Architecture impact with per packet l’avales and stuff we had to explain
> it. Did we go too far into explaining the solution?
>
> Yes, I had the feeling that is went too much into details a couple of
> times. However, as I said, I didn’t read the document in depth and
> therefore can’t give strong advise.
>
> @Suresh: Can you maybe have another look at the reference. If you are okay
> with the current approach, I’m happy to clear my discuss. Mainly wanted to
> double-check!
>

I was fine with the current approach to references but I do see your point.
I will try to see if I can propose something to simplify this.

Thanks
Suresh