(CCs trimmed, since I doubt that [email protected] cares to see the details...)
Just on a couple of points: >>> chair hat on: >>> There can not be a draft covering this yet, because the current >>> ANIMA charter didn't allow us to do this. We've got individual drafts >>> lined up for this topic, we just need to get through the rechartering, >>> we have started the discuss with our AD and wanted to then bring this to >>> the WG. >> <jmh>How can this informational documents say "ASA must ..." if there is no >> definition of what they must do. If the WG has not addressed this topic, >> then reword this. Maybe "It is expected that wide deployment in the future >> will need ..." </jmh> > > I think 6.1 is just missing the (*). I hadn't thought of draft-carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines ever going to the standards track. In any case we'd need a lot more implementation experience before we could consider that. So IMHO we should simply wordsmith section 6.2 to avoid any hint of a normative requirement. Similarly: > Personal opinion: Section 8 on coordination is too hypothetical to be > useful to a reader of this document. I think it is better removed. It's definitely a future work item, but as a minimum I think we should state the problem, so I would suggest editing it down rather than deleting it. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
