Re: [i2rs] Brian Haberman's Abstain on draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: (with COMMENT)

Brian: 

We took this approach initial, but ran into an operational issue with this
approach. 

The specifying documents include:  1) architecture and 2) requirements for
protocols and data models, and 3) informational data model.  In judging
these models, people felt overwhelmed.  In review, they felt them needed the
short document that would introduce in I2RS approach.  

Cheerily, 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:23 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; bill.wu@huawei.com;
draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement@ietf.org; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [i2rs] Brian Haberman's Abstain on
draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: (with COMMENT)

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My position on these types of documents should be pretty clear at this
point. The parts that do have archival value should be published as a part
of a protocol specification or architecture document.

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs