Subject: [Anima] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:54:21 -0700

Spencer Dawkins 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 refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-reference-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm confused here ...

  This document describes a first, simple, implementable phase of an
   Autonomic Networking solution.  It is expected that the experience
   from this phase will be used in defining updated and extended
   specifications over time.  Some topics are considered architecturally
   in this document, but are not yet reflected in the implementation
   specifications.  They are marked with an (*).

This is true now, but when this document is approved, will it be published
immediately (in which case, this is "truth decay", because it becomes less true
in the unchanging RFC every time a topic is reflected in implementation
specifications), or will it be held until all the (*)s are stable?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:16:21 +1300

Hi Spencer,
On 2018-10-25 15:54, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
...

The intention is to publish it now; the (*) items are FFS (for further study)
in ITU or ISO speak. Should we make the last sentence explicit?:

They are marked with an (*) and are intended for further study.

   Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 22:21:57 -0500

Hi, Brian,

> They are marked with an (*) and are intended for further study.

Thanks for the quick reply.

I think that would be an improvement, but if it was clear that there's a
reason to include them in a document being published now, that might be
useful to include.

If it's possible that some of these items might be significantly re-thought
after further study, or even dropped, that seems unhelpful to a reader in
five years.

Spencer

---

From: "Michael H. Behringer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:54:31 +0200

On 25/10/2018 05:21, Spencer Dawkins at
IETF wrote:

Hi, Brian,

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:16 PM Brian E
Carpenter <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Hi
Spencer,

...

> specifications), or will it be held until all the
(*)s are stable?

The intention is to publish it now; the (*) items are FFS
(for further study)

in ITU or ISO speak. Should we make the last sentence
explicit?:

They are marked with an (*) and are intended for further
study.

I think that would be an improvement, but if it was
clear that there's a reason to include them in a document
being published now, that might be useful to include.

If it's possible that some of these items might be
significantly re-thought after further study, or even
dropped, that seems unhelpful to a reader in five years.

Thanks for the thoughts, Spencer. I sort of see that we might end up
with a situation where one of those (*) topics completely disappears
in 5 years, in which case it might indeed look odd.

However, the RFCs come with a publication date. I think it'll then
be clear that 5 years ago, we were thinking in a different
direction, but that over time, the views changed.

Personally, I find it very interesting to read in older documents
why certain things were done or not done, considered or not
considered, even if things change later on.

So, I would trust the future reader to understand that this is
context at the time of publishing the RFC, and might have changed
since. And I think we could well live with that. My suggestion:
Leave.

Michael

Spencer

Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 15:35:56 -0500

Hi, Michael,

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:54 PM Michael H. Behringer <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 25/10/2018 05:21, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
> Hi, Brian,
>
> If it's possible that some of these items might be significantly
> re-thought after further study, or even dropped, that seems unhelpful to a
> reader in five years.
>
>
> Thanks for the thoughts, Spencer. I sort of see that we might end up with
> a situation where one of those (*) topics completely disappears in 5 years,
> in which case it might indeed look odd.
>
> However, the RFCs come with a publication date. I think it'll then be
> clear that 5 years ago, we were thinking in a different direction, but that
> over time, the views changed.
>
> Personally, I find it very interesting to read in older documents why
> certain things were done or not done, considered or not considered, even if
> things change later on.
>
> So, I would trust the future reader to understand that this is context at
> the time of publishing the RFC, and might have changed since. And I think
> we could well live with that. My suggestion: Leave.
>

I'm sorry, I probably confused people.

I wasn't questioning whether to keep or remove the information.

My point was that in five years, some of them might be in implementation
applications, but this RFC will still say that they aren't.

If this included Brian's suggested "They are marked with an (*) and are
intended for further study.", that would be more accurate, and would
explain why they're being included in this document, even though the
contents are somewhat speculative.

And my comment is even more incredibly non-blocking now that Brian made
that suggestion. I'm sure you folk will do the right thing.

Spencer