Subject: [i2rs] Potential charter tweak

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:16:13 -0000

Hi,

One of the ADs doing a final review of the draft charter is struggling with the
difference or overlap between 'architecture' and 'framework'. In response to a
previous comment from him (saying he did not see how an architecture could be
written before the solution specs) I inserted the term "high-level". He now
says...

> You mentioned "high-level" in "High-level architecture and framework".
> That's a step in the right direction.
> Personally, I would change all instances of "High-level architecture and
> framework" to "High-level architecture"

Personally, I can't see that this would make any difference. I only like
"architecture and framework" because it kills the discussion of "Is this an
architecture document or is it a framework document?" So I could make his change
without feeling too depressed.

Would this cause anyone a peptic ulcer?

Adrian

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:20:07 +0000

I agree with you; that doesn't seem to make much of a difference except that it should be reflected explicitly in the work items at the end.

	--Tom

On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:18 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

---

From: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:12:24 +0000

Are you proposing that 'architecture' and 'high-level architecture' mean two separate things?
If yes, I think that's going to make it awkward to discuss.  
If no, I'm not sure why the qualifier 'high-level' is needed.

I'll go back and hide under my bridge now....

eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [i2rs] Potential charter tweak
> 
> Hi,
> 
> previous comment from him (saying he did not see how an architecture could
> be written before the solution specs) I inserted the term "high-level". He now
> says...
> 
> > Personally, I would change all instances of "High-level architecture
> > and framework" to "High-level architecture"
> 
> architecture document or is it a framework document?" So I could make his
> change without feeling too depressed.
>

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:52:06 -0500

Hi,

It wouldn't make me apoplectic - but I think we have some understanding of
what
is meant by "architecture" and "framework" in the context of i2rs.

The individual framework draft talks about desired aspects of the i2rs
solution and the
scope of interfaces that are intended.  An architecture draft, to my mind,
would
talk about the different entities using i2rs, the interactions with
different protocols,
and how i2rs can be used in different, well, architectures - so that
Dmitri's draft
is a very preliminary step in that direction.

Thus - the framework is the skeleton of what is desired and required in
i2rs, giving the
scope and reasoning.   Perhaps it should turn into a requirements draft?

Alia

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:

> be

---

From: Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:28:29 -0800

Alia;  I tend to think of what you've described as applicability and
requirements.  A framework would, IMO, include some set of underlying
primitives, mechanisms or structures that would form the basis for an
extensible architecture.

Having said that, there's clearly a lot of variation in the way these terms
are used;  I'm ok with 'high level architecture', although I agree with
Noel that it's a bit tautological.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:03:09 +0100

It is minor issue, so I don't mind, or no objection,

AB

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:29:20 -0500

> scope and reasoning.   Perhaps it should turn into a requirements draft?

IMHO, this hits the nail on the head.

:-)

Russ

-- 
<><
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:55:12 +0100

+1

AB

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:12:30 -0500

We can work on that,  but it does list things that aren't in the more
tightly bound use-cases.

Alia
P S.  I'm sick with a bad case of the flu so my input and draft-revising is
pretty limited for a bit.