[I2nsf] 答复: Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

["Xialiang (Frank)" <[e-mail]>]

+1

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: John Strassner [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2017年8月4日 0:29
收件人: Susan Hares
抄送: Yoav Nir; Adrian Farrel; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kathleen Moriarty
主题: Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?

I disagree that creating a bis document for terminology changes is a good approach. This means that we are creating a bis document for content that is not inherently part of the framework document!

John

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Yoav and Adrian:
>
> I agree with you that split the terminology is not a good way to go.  
> As a solution to Yoav's problem, may I suggest the following:
>
> 1) publish the terminology information in the framework document,
> 2) Keep a WG draft for terms that change - this can create a bis 
> document for the framework document when we have completed all the 
> rest of the work,
>
> Cheerily,
> Sue hares
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoav Nir [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 7:27 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]; 'Kathleen 
> Moriarty'
> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content 
> from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?
>
> Hi, Adrian.
>
> I tend to agree that splitting the terminology around to several small 
> documents is not a good way to go.
>
> I think it should be OK to move the contents into the framework draft, 
> perhaps as an appendix, with an appropriate paragraph saying that the 
> terminology in this section is meant for the entire document set of 
> I2NSF and some of the terms are not used in this (the framework) document.
>
> There is one potential issue with doing it this way. We intend to get 
> the framework document published soonish. So if we add the terminology 
> there, it gets published in an RFC and gets "set in stone". While it's 
> always possible to add new terms afterwards, it gets messy to change 
> the meaning of existing terms already defined in the RFC.
>
> Are we willing to accept this risk/constraint of future work?
>
> Yoav
>
> On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 11:18 +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > FWIW, some context.
> >
> > As we started to advance a number of I2NSF document we ran into a 
> > few
> problems:
> > - Different documents used different terms for similar or identical 
> > concepts
> > - Different documents used the same terms to mean different things
> > - Different documents attempted to define the same terms, but 
> > actually
> introduced
> >    discrepancies in the definitions
> > - Documents started to acquire circular normative dependencies on 
> > each other
> > - Documents made best efforts to duplicate definition text but were 
> > not
> kept
> >    up-to-date and in synch
> >
> > The terminology document was introduced as a way to provide one 
> > single
> point of reference for all terms and to ensure consistency.
> >
> > Of course, I don't mind what solution to this purely non-technical 
> > issue is used so long as it adequately addresses all of the needs. 
> > And if the IESG has cycles to burn to work out how to publish 
> > terminology definitions without causing ambiguity or confusion, then 
> > it is fine with me that they do that (it will keep them from doing 
> > harm in the technical areas where they might not have the expertise 
> > to do the right thing :-)
> >
> > But there are three concerns that I have:
> >
> > 1. Moving *some* of the definitions from the terminology draft to
> another draft will leave behind other terms. That is to say, not all 
> the terms currently in the terminology draft are currently used in 
> just one other draft. So there will be an annoying and messy period of 
> working out where the terms need to be moved to. Alternatively, the 
> whole of the terminology draft should be subsumed into some other 
> foundational document notwithstanding that that other document does 
> not use those terms - that sounds easy, but I bet there will be review 
> comments that say "delete this term because it is not used in this document."
> >
> > 2. When new drafts are written there needs to be a central place to 
> > go
> to find the right term to use to prevent invention of new terms or 
> re-invention of existing terms.
> >
> > 3. When a WG or document authors find themselves doing "whatever is
> necessary to get a document published" they are making pointless 
> concessions to the arbitrary rules of Discusses placed on them by the 
> IESG which risks over-running community consensus. That is, of course, 
> a socio-political matter, and I don't expect the WG to engage on it, 
> but individuals who care about the IETF might want to think it through.
> >
> > I'm not really working on this stuff anymore, so this email really 
> > is
> only for context and to help you understand how we got to where we are.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: I2nsf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Kathleen 
> > > Moriarty
> > > Sent: 02 August 2017 20:17
> > > To: John Strassner
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > draft-ietf-i2nsf- [e-mail]; Yoav Nir; Linda Dunbar
> > > Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content 
> > > from draft-ietf- i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft?
> > >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > As a standalone document, the terminology draft is a support 
> > > document