Re: [homenet] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10

I propose Architecture Overview.
On Sep 24, 2013 7:04 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 25/09/2013 04:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> wrote:
> >> I believe that perhaps the title is now wrong.
> >> I think that it should say:
> >>    "Requirements for Home Networking for IPv6"
> >>
> >> (But, it's really more than requirements. It's just less than
> architecture)
> >
> > I previously suggested "Preliminary architecture ..."   Would that
> address your concern?   I don't think it's precisely a requirements
> document; the document does what the working group currently needs it to
> do, and I would hate to see us spend another couple of meeting cycles
> turning it into a formal requirements document unless someone can make a
> clear argument that doing so is necessary.
>
> Both 'framework' and 'architecture' mean different things to different
> people. I could say the same about 'guidelines' too.
>
> It doesn't matter which of these vague words we use. 'Preliminary
> architecture' is fine. Just make sure that the abstract and introduction
> set the reader's expectations correctly, which judging by SM's review
> is not quite the case yet.
>
>     Brian
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>