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

["Michael H. Behringer" <[e-mail]>]

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.