Subject: Re: -technology - definitions

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:45:11 -0400

Scott  Bradner <[email-masked]> writes:

> the defs that are in both docs should have been the same - and will be
> made so

Sounds good.

I guess what I would have expected is that the definitions (since
there are a fair number of them) would appear in only one document,
with the other pointing to the first. Since both documents appear to
have normative references to each other already, this wouldn't lead to
a dependency issue that isn't already there.

Reasons for having defns in one place are the usual. Less chance they
get out of sync, and the reader can assume that the definitions are
the same in both docs without having to actually check.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 00:48:27 -0400 (EDT)

> with the other pointing to the first

that is the way I did it the 1st time but there was pushbak on the list 
to say that the defs dhould be in both so that they are complete

Scott

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:58:38 -0400

--On Saturday, August 02, 2003 00:48 -0400 Scott  Bradner
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I guess what I would have expected is that the definitions
>> (since there are a fair number of them) would appear in only
>> one document, with the other pointing to the first
> 
> that is the way I did it the 1st time but there was pushbak on
> the list  to say that the defs dhould be in both so that they
> are complete

FWIW, I agree with Thomas - these docs will certainly need to be
maintained - durinf development or beyond it.  One set of defs
in one place, where in one doc referenced by the other or in a
third doc, will save us a lot of potential trouble and
cross-checking (which we will, no doubt, forget to do).

    john