IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA12F11E8183; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NSeEgI0FsOIe; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x236.google.com (mail-pb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2102D11E8186; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ro12so5236783pbb.27 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qrDohcqREBBlnCqm4m+NRy0apFHOoiKxSkD9O05KQMY=; b=W7OL+VhGPCqXkYuMZKuRSBGm7Znq53m9YThoQuO6VKbuq6dWPq/uJaHPUzTNtriAix yb/pouovRUR4lYr4OYPBT6UjrKfREE26mfx1ISkm/XFelkpm7yRErJ5Fxvr5Wbts1XRe eZZHDvKBamyGdpljCV5x4rQ7D7k8teT8tu/zd4wZY1cmuXd9LhBzb/+42P7FvFSdpkjO axuBmiLxkmUR+uUbRIqYQaa9sL7Fn0SagIN91FYNY+Ovn3+wyhnWp9dMd5CRzctmnmc+ xdU6gwGOKqo+LkxW4C9ms5T5+H7gBy5yVGvmQF5OfAbml9mWkInrFlYRiuXQBOrW0bId 3Tyg==
X-Received: by 10.67.11.103 with SMTP id eh7mr8804229pad.153.1380063887545; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.31.170] (wireless-nat-1.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.30.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xe9sm48500004pab.0.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52421A8F.2090603@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:04:47 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130914143222.0b9590f0@elandnews.com> <C4F6B742-3784-48BA-8B97-BE3B8972DC39@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|72d902bbed65dc8b06cf46c298d30fe1p8I0CV03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C4F6B742-3784-48BA-8B97-BE3B8972DC39@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <6.2.5.6.2.20130918225335.0d0e2478@elandnews.com> <14439.1380035891@sandelman.ca> <76716D93-E946-4682-BE1C-CF2DC0434CE5@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <76716D93-E946-4682-BE1C-CF2DC0434CE5@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<apps-discuss@ietf.org>" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-homenet-arch.all@tools.ietf.org, "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:04:49 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email