Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refe
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 secti
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> 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 th
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 su
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 3:4
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
""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
> 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
