[sacm] Disposition of Expired Architecture Draft

[Adam Montville <[e-mail]>]

All:

During today’s virtual interim meeting we briefly discussed what we should do about the expired architecture draft [1].  Some of us would like to resubmit the draft and keep it alive, whereas others would like to let it sit in an expired state until we think we need it again.

As a contributor, I share the latter opinion for the following reasons.

It seems that the architecture draft (an informational draft) was conceived as an abstract notion against which we would be able to pit implementations (i.e. solutions drafts).  XMPP-grid was one such solution, but it has gone on to a different working group, and our focus now seems to be upon the Endpoint Compliance Standard (ECS) draft as our architectural solution [2].  Further, and I believe some would agree, the architecture draft feels very XMPP-grid focused (it essentially describes what XMPP-grid implements).

I am aware that we have not adopted the ECS draft, but I also believe it has the most momentum at this point and is a reasonable solution for our work.  It may also be instructive to note that we are in the middle of an adoption call for a draft that presumes an ECS or ECS-like architecture [3].

My proposal is that we allow the architecture draft to remain in an expired state, primarily for lack of relevance to our present course.

Kind regards,

Adam


[1] https://tools.ietf.org/wg/sacm/draft-ietf-sacm-architecture/ <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/sacm/draft-ietf-sacm-architecture/>
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/wg/sacm/draft-ietf-sacm-architecture/ <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/sacm/draft-ietf-sacm-architecture/>
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/L3A-n6P3U-Khrhs_mYcXtjwy9-w <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/L3A-n6P3U-Khrhs_mYcXtjwy9-w>