Subject: Re: [i2rs] Potential charter tweak

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:50:51 -0500 (EST)

> From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>

    > One of the ADs doing a final review of the draft charter is struggling
    > with the difference or overlap between 'architecture' and 'framework'.

    >> I would change all instances of "High-level architecture and
    >> framework" to "High-level architecture"

    > Would this cause anyone a peptic ulcer?

To me, "high-level architecture" is beyond utterly redundant. (If it's not
high-level, it's not architecture.)

If 'architecture and framework' doesn't fly (it doesn't bother me that much,
and I see your point about avoiding the question, although I too am not sure
I see much of a distinction), just flip a coin (literally) and pick one.

	Noel

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:59:26 +0000

I am used to a clear distinction between architecture and framework, a
framework being Informational while an architecture is close to if not
actually a Standard.  Designs MUST then conform to the architecture.

That said, most IETF work goes straight into detailed design, sometimes
not even pausing for requirements:-(

I liked 'architecture and framework' as covering most, if not all, the
bases.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Potential charter tweak

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