Subject: [Dots] on cyclical normative dependencies

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 05:11:18 -0500

During the session today, Med mentioned at the mic that if we moved the
content from draft-nishizuka-dots-signal-control-filtering into the signal
channel document, then we would have a normative dependency from the signal
channel on the data channel (and the data channel already depends
normatively on the signal channel), as if this would be problematic.

I don't think this is inherentely problematic, as it just means that the
two documents will advance together as a group.  It's still a useful tool
to be able to separate the content out into logically separate documents
even if they are interdependent and in some sense must be considered
together as a consolidated group.  We see this pattern occur regularly in
the IETF, and it's not worrisome.

So I don't think that the cyclical dependency is a reason to leave
signal-control-filtering as a separate document (but I do agree with the
sentiment in the room that we may want to let this document settle in for a
while before we decide that we're happy with it), but given the trend of
the discussion it didn't seem worth spending the time to say it at the
microphone.

-Ben

---

From: "Jon Shallow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:29:22 -0000

We already have an interaction/dependency between the signal and data
channel over the use of aliases, adding in acls interaction/dependency
should not make much difference if we are going for moving
draft-nishizuka-dots-signal-control-filtering into signal draft.

Regards

Jon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto: [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Benjamin
> Kaduk
> Sent: 28 March 2019 10:11
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Dots] on cyclical normative dependencies
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots