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

[John Strassner <[e-mail]>]

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.
> > > The IESG issued the following statement on support documents:
> > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.ht
> > > ml
> > >
> > > I have no problem helping a WG to publish support documents, but
> > > would like them to think through what they are doing. We typically
> > > see terminology as part of a main document for a WG and not a draft
> > > by itself.  If it's part of a standards track document (appendix or
> > > terminology section), then there is no question on it's value.
> > >
> > > You may want to take a look at the ballots for the WG documents that
> > > have gone through the IESG to date and you'll see the types of issues.
> > > Mainly it is the time/resources spent publishing such documents.
> > > I'd like to see the terminology published in some document, but not
> > > necessarily as a stand alone document.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Kathleen
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Strassner
> > > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > I expressed some minor concerns before, and will do so again.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ·         What is the reasoning against publishing an INFORMATIONAL
> RFC for
> > > > terminology?
> > > >
> > > > ·         Many of the terms in the current terminology draft are not
> used in
> > > > the framework draft
> > > >
> > > > o   This is because the terminology draft was originally conceived
> to work
> > > > for many diverse subject areas
> > > >
> > > > o   The framework draft will not cover some of these diverse
> subjects in
> > > > detail, and hence, does not need those terms; including them will
> > > > make the reading awkward at best
> > > >
> > > > ·         Thus, I would recommend
> > > >
> > > > o   We keep the current terminology draft until these other subject
> areas
> > > > mature and have WG-adopted drafts (a possible alternative is
> > > > putting them on the wiki; I am not a big fan of wikis)
> > > >
> > > > o   We move the appropriate terms into appropriate drafts
> > > >
> > > > §  Note: this will cause duplication of terms – yet another reason
> > > > to keep the terminology draft
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: I2nsf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Linda
> > > > Dunbar
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 10:31 AM
> > > > To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>;
> > > > [e-mail];
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <[e-mail]>; Yoav
> > > > Nir <[e-mail]>
> > > > Subject: [I2nsf] Is there any objection of merging the content
> > > > from draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework
> draft?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I2NSF participants:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > During the IETF99 I2NSF Session, our AD Kathleen said that the
> > > > current IESG doesn’t like to have RFC for Terminology only drafts.
> > > > So we should consider merging the content of Terminology with
> > > > other drafts. I2NSF framework draft would be a nature place to have
> the terminologies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you have any objections or concerns of merging the content from
> > > > draft-ietf-i2nsf-terminology to draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework draft,
> > > > please express them to the I2NSF mailing list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Linda & Yoav.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Kathleen
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > I2nsf mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > I2nsf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>



-- 
regards,
John