Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc

All,

Tickets were opened against the architecture draft via the IETF website.  I sent links previously, and I think Adam did also.  Please go review and provide comments.  These were the only remaining comments on the draft at the time.

This being said, I have heard comments the architecture draft is still to high level.  Please provide direction to the editors which areas are to high level, and “all of them” is not an acceptable answer.  Instead list them and provide comments on what needs to be further defined.

For the past two years, we have heard generic comments along the lines of:

 *   Too high level
 *   Not enough detail
 *   Don’t like the structure

I’ll be straight...these are not helpful.  Provide feedback such as...I don’t like this, and this is specifically how you fix it.

This will help us move forward quickly.

Thanks,

Daryl

On 6/3/10 11:42 AM, "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

+1. Let’s me know if I can help in any way.

On 6/3/10 1:32 PM, "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <hmmr@cisco.com> wrote:

Agree with that approach.

Mike

From: speermint-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:speermint-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daryl Malas
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:54 PM
To: Peterson, Jon; speermint@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc

Jon et. al,

I agree we should finish the architecture document.  If members of this mailing list and the working group think it requires greater definition around certain functions, then please contribute.  I would like to suggest we focus on two drafts to wrap up in Maastricht:

Architecture
Security

After completing these two drafts, we shut down the working group by Beijing.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Daryl

On 5/27/10 12:50 PM, "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> wrote:

While all IETF working groups look forward to the day they can close their doors, I’m not sure I’d be happy to see SPEERMINT make its final bow without completing the architecture document.

I believe that in the LUF/LRF distinction, the SPEERMINT group has captured an idea that is valuable, and moreover one which, as the original charter of this group intended, identifies a reality of deployments that the standards community had previously ignored. It explodes the conceit that a one-step resolution process, just transforming a telephone number into a “global” URI, will address the needs of the sort of peering communities this group examines. While the distinction between LUF and LRF is not a precise one, and has never been immensely well understood, I contend that it is valuable nonetheless, and that if confusion about the idea prompts us to discard the work in SPEERMINT, I have no reason to expect anything different to happen in DRINKS or any other group that must operate on these same architectures. I don’t think the sketches in the terminology draft suffice as a foundation for that work.

Finishing the architecture document is not solving world hunger. While everything in the IETF takes much longer than you’d imagine, I don’t think this has to be one or two years out – I think it would be reasonable to make a final push to clear up the snags in the document, and just set a deadline by which this group will emit it as an Informational. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be able to serve as the framework for the subsequent discussions in DRINKS and other future arenas. I think this is an an achievable, and relatively honorable, way to round up the work that the SPEERMINT charter originally laid out.

If there is enough energy here for one last jaunt, I’d be happy to assist that effort in any capacity.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

________________________________
_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
Speermint@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint