Subject: RE: [newtrk] An ISD example - MIXER

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:28:17 +0200

Harald,

> Worthwhile use of time?
> And - does the ISD look sensible/readable to you all?

It looks sensible & readable to me.

Some responses to your questions:

> 3.2.2  Additional Relevant Documents
> 
> [[Note - the term "extensions" feels odd to me. Does an extension have its own ISD, 
> or is the job done when it's listed in its relevant ISD?]]

An extension has its own ISD if its important enough to have someone write one.
How's that for circular logic?  I think most extensions should be put into the
main ISD, but if some extensions have a life of their own, they probably need an
ISD.

An IPv6 ISD would contain Neighbor Discovery.  Neighbor discover has been
extended by SEND; SEND could probably be clasified as an extension. Now in 
multi6, there are discussions about HBAs which are a form or extension of
CGAs which are discussed in SEND; so probably SEND now would need an ISD of
its own.

John L.

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:22:04 -0500 (EST)

Margaret sez:
> I agree that finding a way to post approved ISDs without 3-1/2 months 
> of RFC Editor time is important.  In  fact, I think we should find a 
> way to publish all of our approved documents much faster than that. 
> I have some ideas about how to re-order the IETF document 
> editing/approval process to accomplish that, but I'm not sure that 
> this is the right place to discuss them.  Is it?

while this might be the right place I do not think its the right time

lets finish the discusisons on ISD and cruft first

then we need to go back to the standards track topic (which may be 
impacted by the ISD work) 

If you have specific ideas it would be good to have them in the form of
an Internet draft by then

Scott
.