IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (2)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 31 May 2017 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 919F8129B9B; Wed, 31 May 2017 13:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxN3JrzBDmbf; Wed, 31 May 2017 13:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E89C1241FC; Wed, 31 May 2017 13:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v4VKdMas019560 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 31 May 2017 15:39:22 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <19f8e94f-fe08-f1e8-53f5-6852953690e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 15:39:22 -0500
Cc: draft-ietf-anima-grasp@ietf.org, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CDA36D14-DDE6-45CE-B9F7-5CD5EFBA574D@nostrum.com>
References: <149550272234.507.6666100470577050600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <19f8e94f-fe08-f1e8-53f5-6852953690e3@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/B-jTVogrR64FmhBxSdT10WmNJmQ>
Subject: Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (2)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 20:39:48 -0000

> On May 28, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 23/05/2017 13:25, Ben Campbell wrote:
> ...
>> - Is section 2 [Requirements] expected to be useful to implementers once this is> published as an RFC? Unless there's a reason otherwise, I would suggest
>> moving this to an appendix, or even removing it entirely. As it is, you
>> have to wade through an unusual amount of front material before you get
>> to the meat of the protocol.
> 
> I'm open to that, and you are not the only reader with that comment.
> But we'd need WG consent…

Understood. I’m not going to stand in the way if the WG wants to keep things as is. But I do think that moving/removing the section would make the document more friendly to it’s post-publication target audience.

Thanks!

Ben.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email