>> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf