Re: [v6ops] 464XLAT and the term "architecture" -- WAS draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report"

Cameron,

I did say that I object *slightly* to the choice of word.

I've been a bit suspicious of the word "architecture" for many years,
probably the result of serving in the Internet Architecture Board
while living next door to an actual architect who designed buildings,
and who lectured me at length about the proper meaning ;-).

Basically the word means different things to different people, whatever
the Open Group says. But let's not waste more time on it.

Regards
   Brian

On 2012-02-20 14:35, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> New title to focus on the taxonomy and term "architecture"
> 
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Victor Kuarsingh
> <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12-02-19 2:23 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> I do object slightly to the way draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat uses
>>> the word "architecture". It's an operational scenario, not an
>>> architecture, IMHO.
>> Are you concerned that the use of "architecture" may be interpreted as
>> protocol architecture vs. network architecture?  IMHO, I would suggest
>> what's in the document reflects a network/deployment architecture (my
>> opinion).
>>
>> Perhaps authors can clarify what they meant.
>>
> 
> Gladly.
> 
> I will call on the TOGAF definitions:
> 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/chap03.html#tag_03_08
> 
> Architecture:
> 
>    1)    A formal description of a system, or a detailed plan of the
> system at component level, to guide its implementation (source:
> ISO/IEC 42010:2007).
>     2)  The structure of components, their inter-relationships, and
> the principles and guidelines governing their design and evolution
> over time.
> 
> I believe the 464XLAT draft fits pretty well in this definition.  We
> look to describe the system, guide implementation, and show how the
> pieces fit together.
> 
> I believe the term framework is too broad (but close) and solution and
> scenario are too specific for the context of this draft to cover both
> wireline and wireless.  In a few cases, for example address assignment
> to the CPE / UE and Pref64/n discovery, we supply multiple methods
> that the desired outcome can be achieved to accommodate and not limit
> how 464XLAT can be applied now and in the future.
> 
> We took care to not be overly prescriptive in defining how a network
> operator shall design their network.  One of the key values we believe
> publishing the draft will bring is the ability to describe succinctly
> yet generically how traffic is treated in a 464XLAT network so that
> all parties (software, hardware, application, peers...) can have a
> common understanding of the network capabilities and the way in which
> traffic will be treated.
> 
> CB
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 