""This section discusses a topic for further research” sounds good to me.
Thanks! Ben. > On Oct 25, 2018, at 2:47 PM, Michael H. Behringer > <michael.h.behrin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ah, now I understand. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, we really used it as sort > of a "boiler plate" for topics that are not part of this phase of ANIMA work. > I guess we just introduced (informational)^2. > > I'm happy to change that "boiler plate" text. What about "This section > discusses a topic for further research". > > I guess we can edit that when we get to the RFC Editor queue. > > Michael > > On 25/10/2018 17:18, Ben Campbell wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> My real concern is that “informational” is a term of art in the IETF, and >> the use of it to label “later phase” sections is a different use than that. >> >> I will leave it to the authors to decide if that would be confusing to the >> target audience. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben. >> >>> On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:43 AM, Michael H. Behringer >>> <michael.h.behrin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ben, thanks for your review! >>> >>> Yes, we're a bit "verbose" with those topics. There was a consistent worry >>> all through our work to distinguish phase 1 and phase 2 work, and to not >>> let phase 2 work creep into phase 1. So we probably erred on the more >>> "explicit" wording, trying to make REALLY sure everybody understands what's >>> in scope for phase 1 or not. >>> >>> Unless you have a real concern at some specific points, I would prefer to >>> not open those debates again. Yes, from a language point of view there is >>> redundancy, but at least we're being very clear. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> On 25/10/2018 04:33, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter >>>>> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>> >>>>> On 2018-10-25 12:08, Ben Campbell wrote: >>>>> .... >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the work on this. I just have one editorial comment: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Several sections describe themselves as being for "informational >>>>>> purposes". >>>>>> Given that this is an informational document, isn't that true of all >>>>>> sections? >>>>> Those sections are among the ones tagged (*) as per: >>>>> >>>>>>> Some topics are considered architecturally >>>>>>> in this document, but are not yet reflected in the implementation >>>>>>> specifications. They are marked with an (*). >>>>> Possibly the (*) is sufficient and the phrase you mention can be removed. >>>> I think that could help. Or alternatively, put a few extra words in the >>>> (*) sections to remind people what it means :-) >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Ben. >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
