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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

""This section discusses a topic for further research” sounds good to me.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 2:47 PM, Michael H. Behringer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ah, now I understand. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, we really used it as sort of a "boiler plate" for topics that are not part of this phase of ANIMA work. I guess we just introduced (informational)^2.
> 
> I'm happy to change that "boiler plate" text.  What about "This section discusses a topic for further research".
> 
> I guess we can edit that when we get to the RFC Editor queue.
> 
> Michael
> 
> On 25/10/2018 17:18, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> 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.
>