But it's not clear to me that these (especially architecture and impacts) can
be said to have been properly analyzed until some of the lower-priority items
(I'm thinking of threats, cache, ETR sync) have been fleshed out.
I hear what you are saying. But I think the opinion in the IESG at least
was, however, that those three really are high priority, and that other
documents before them are not so useful before they are completed. I guess
it is a different perspective, whether you do things top-down or bottom-up.
I do agree with both points of view, actually.
The dependencies (threats, cache, ETR sync, and whatever else) can
certainly be discussed to the extent needed to lay out the
architecture and other priority documents, with notes taken and saved
for when other documents need to be produced. That still says that
the working group needs to focus on discussion that leads to the
completion of the three priority documents first, before tackling the
others. Everyone understands that these priority items can't be
developed in a vacuum; we just don't want things to wander off into
lower-level details such as protocol elements and text that can wait
for the next phase.
Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf