On Tue, 20 May 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:
Alex Rousskov wrote:
OPES callout protocol is an internal and optional OPES feature. No
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) considerations [RFC3238] are
relevant to OCP.
For example, ...
Just stating that the IAB consideration are not relevant to OCP
might not be appropriate. Past experience has shown that it's
helpful and worthwhile to explicitly address each of the IAB
considerations, and explain how OCP addresses each specific
consideration, or why it's not applicable to OCP. In the latter
case, it would be helpful to indicate which piece in OPES takes care
of the specific consideration and add a reference. For example, it
might not be obvious why tracing/bypass doesn't impact OCP at all -
a short explanation and reference might help.
The proposed wording gives an example for one IAB consideration (5.1
Privacy). You are arguing that there needs to be one statement for
each IAB consideration (9 of them). This approach will result in lots
of repeated text in every OPES document that has an "IAB
Considerations" section.
Perhaps we should have a single document dedicated to IAB
considerations then? That document will have one entry per
consideration, with pointers to other relevant documents such as
architecture, OCP, tracing, and bypass drafts? This way we can remove
all "IAB Considerations" sections from specific drafts that
(technically) have nothing to do with IAB. We will have all
IAB-related information in one place, without repetitions.
To summarize, there are three options:
1. "lean and mean":
Each draft has its own IAB Considerations section
addressing only relevant considerations (if any)
2. "can never be too careful":
Each draft has its own IAB Considerations section
addressing all 9 considerations (explaining
irrelevance where needed and pointing to relevant
drafts)
3. "all under one roof":
One dedicated "Addressing IAB Considerations" draft
addressing all 9 considerations (pointing to relevant
drafts as needed). Other drafts simply refer to
this dedicated draft from their Introductions.
To me #1 and #3 are more attractive than #2. Which one would you
prefer?
Thanks,
Alex.