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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

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.html

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