Michael:
For the joint picture that shows the async points both in the frontent (pledge)
as well as backend (Registrar) together, which document should that go into ?
I am mostly worried that we understand how the case where you have both
async points toether will work.
Cheers
Toerless
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 01:08:56PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> t...@cs.fau.de <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > plant would often want to have a combination of both scenarios:
> > The manufacturing plant might prefer to not be connected to the
> > Internet (== scenario 1) AND pledges want to be of the type defined
> > via Scenario 2.
>
> Will we be able to avoid normative cross-references? Probably not.
> So the documents will progress together.
>
> I think that where we will benefit will be in the review/reader point of view.
>
> > Meaning: I would not exclude the option yet, to split the document in
> > 3: One that is the inclusive "reference/architecture" document that
> > we keep alive and extend with whatever we need to keep in common,
> > and then 2 or maybe over time more protocol specification parts of
> > the pieces we are adding.
>
> I would call the third document the applicability statement for uses in
> industry FOO.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
> Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
--
---
t...@cs.fau.de
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
