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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

My real concern is that “informational” is a term of art in the IETF, and the use of it to label “later phase” sections is a different use than that.

I will leave it to the authors to decide if that would be confusing to the target audience.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:43 AM, Michael H. Behringer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben, thanks for your review!
> 
> Yes, we're a bit "verbose" with those topics. There was a consistent worry all through our work to distinguish phase 1 and phase 2 work, and to not let phase 2 work creep into phase 1. So we probably erred on the more "explicit" wording, trying to make REALLY sure everybody understands what's in scope for phase 1 or not.
> 
> Unless you have a real concern at some specific points, I would prefer to not open those debates again. Yes, from a language point of view there is redundancy, but at least we're being very clear.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> On 25/10/2018 04:33, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> 
>>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ben,
>>> 
>>> On 2018-10-25 12:08, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> ....
>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the work on this. I just have one editorial comment:
>>>> 
>>>> - Several sections describe themselves as being for "informational purposes".
>>>> Given that this is an informational document, isn't that true of all sections?
>>> Those sections are among the ones tagged (*) as per:
>>> 
>>>>>   Some topics are considered architecturally
>>>>>   in this document, but are not yet reflected in the implementation
>>>>>   specifications.  They are marked with an (*).
>>> Possibly the (*) is sufficient and the phrase you mention can be removed.
>> I think that could help. Or alternatively, put a few extra words in the (*) sections to remind people what it means :-)
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Ben.
>