Addressing what seems to be the difficult issue: t petch <ie...@btconnect.com> writes: > The trouble with the way that Last Call is organised is that the changes > suggested below will pull this I-D out of line with the others > potentially leading to contradiction and confusion.
As I understand it, the only critique I presented of the overall organization is: >> But since the data model definition >> does not depend on the overall architecture, the document should be >> revised to either (1) remove unnecessary references to the overall >> architecture, (2) segregate them in ways that show they are not needed >> to understand the data model, or (3) carefully referenced back to the >> documents that define them. My intention was to suggest multiple ways that this draft could be adjusted so that it was clear to someone who hadn't already absorbed the gestalt of the whole document set. There are likely other possibilities as well. It seems to me that the approach that would require the least change is (3), updating the terminology section to list all the terms that are imported from the other documents and provide references to their definitions. I would also give some consideration to whether there are definitions/descriptions of the data items that could be clearly understood without external references, but the current text requires that external context to be easily understood. In such cases, it's usually best to provide a "context-free" defintion, and then add an explanatory sentence describing how that fits within the larger system. But I don't see any of this as pulling this draft away from the others. Is there an example that comes to mind? Dale _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
