Subject: Re: [Simple] updated data-model I-D

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:28:26 -0500

On Aug 28, 2005, at 6:51 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>
>> Issue 4: PIDF-LO integration: Proposal to keep definition of PIDF-LO 
>> encapsulation out of data model spec. Argued that this makes for a 
>> lot of documents to read in order to get an implementation. General 
>> consensus on proposal.
>> I actually recall that Henning argued against this, and the 
>> conclusion was to just put words in. So I did. See below for the 
>> specific text.
>
> Indeed - the wording of the minutes makes little sense, as the second 
> sentence directly contradicts the first one.
>

Yes, the second sentence DOES contradict the first one -- people argued 
about the proposal, but my read (as secretary) was that following that 
argument, we had an agreement on the original proposal, which "requires 
one to read a lot of documents".

> I think the full discussion went something like this:
>
> - We need to tell people how to use PIDF-LO within the data model, as 
> the current PIDF-LO draft is silent on this topic and only defines its 
> position by example - which unfortunately puts it exactly in the wrong 
> place by the logic of the data model. (PIDF-LO predates the data model 
> work although it hasn't emerged from AUTH48, apparently.)
>
> - We could write another draft that just addressed this question.
>
> - But that would add yet another document that an implementor has to 
> find and read [while the data model document currently serves as a 
> good first document and substitutes for an architecture document].
>
>

Right, and my notes (and recollection) indicate that the consensus was 
"write another draft". Seems like a lot of work to me, and if we 
actually have a consensus on adding the text to the data model, I'm 
okay with that. But I suspect a chair ruling is in-order.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:34:56 -0400

Now that we have text (approximately one paragraph) that seems to handle 
the situation, maybe we can make a decision in light of that.

> actually have a consensus on adding the text to the data model, I'm okay 
> with that. But I suspect a chair ruling is in-order.
> 
> -- 
> Dean