Subject: Re: [clue] #25: Advertisement: Complete "all" or "delta"

From: "clue issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:05:28 -0000

#25: Advertisement:  Complete "all" or "delta"

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:  [email-masked] =>
     [email-masked]
 * severity:  - => Active WG Document

Old description:

> Issue a from 19-20 Sept. 2012 interim
>
> Need to decide whether advertisement is complete information "all" or
> just a "delta"  [Note: current framework is "all"]

New description:

 Issue a from 19-20 Sept. 2012 interim

 Need to decide whether advertisement is complete information "all" or just
 a "delta"  [Note: current framework is "all"]

 Issue was discussed again at May 21, 2013 interim:
 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2013/05/21/clue/minutes/minutes-
 interim-2013-clue-1
 General sense that this is a solution issue. However, Christian doesn't
 necessarily agree. Action: Christian/Roni figure out if and where this
 should be addressed in FW.

--

Comment:

 Ticket update to reflect new assignee and discussion from May 21st, 2013
 interim.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]         |  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement              |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                    |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  framework                |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/trac/ticket/25#comment:1>
clue <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:09:15 -0400

(as individual)

IMO this should be an issue for signaling, not the framework.
I consider it a level of detail below what the framework needs to mention.

Of course we don't yet have a *wg* signaling draft to target this to.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 19:20:47 -0500

This issue is because Christian does not think it is just a signaling
issue.  Per the text in the ticket:
" General sense that this is a solution issue. However, Christian
doesn't necessarily agree. Action: Christian/Roni?figure out if and
where this should be addressed in FW."

Once we get consensus that it's not a FW issue, we can close and then
open a new issue or just update this one.

Mary.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> just
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:16:23 +1000

Hello Mary and Paul,

I agree that the details need to be worked out in the signalling 
document. My comment was more related to that the framework should 
contain a short summary of what ever is worked out in the signalling 
document. It should be possible for someone to read the framework 
document and have an overview of how CLUE is used (including whether an 
all or delta approach is used).

We can't add the summary until we figure out what we'll use in the 
signalling document.

Regards, Christian

---

From: "clue issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:59:35 -0000

* component:  framework => charter

New description:

 Issue was discussed again at May 21, 2013 interim:
 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2013/05/21/clue/minutes/minutes-
 interim-2013-clue-1
 Agreement that this decision must be part of the signaling solution.
 However, Christian believes that the approach decided should also be
 documented in the framework.  Action: Christian/Roni figure out if and
 where this should be addressed in FW.   WG: make the fundamental solution
 for the signaling solution document.

--

Component:  charter                  |     Version:

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/trac/ticket/25#comment:2>
clue <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:59:50 -0500

Then the debate is still whether we need something in the framework.
Personally, I think that's an implementation/solution detail and
really an optimization and not a fundamental requirement for
realization of the FW in a solution.   I don't think anyone's debating
that this would be documented and detailed in the solution document.
I can open a separate issue, but I personally don't think that's
necessary as long as the text in the issue is correct - I've updated
the text slightly.  If you don't think this captures the current state
properly, then post alternative text for that issue.

Mary.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Christian Groves
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hello Mary and Paul,
>
> I agree that the details need to be worked out in the signalling document.
> My comment was more related to that the framework should contain a short
> summary of what ever is worked out in the signalling document. It should be
> possible for someone to read the framework document and have an overview of
> how CLUE is used (including whether an all or delta approach is used).
>