Barry and all, On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: ... >>> 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. You don't want to boil the ocean; that's fine. My point is that without covering (at least) cache management and ETR synchronization, the architecture will not be done. Think about the old joke about the mathematical proof that includes "... then a miracle occurs" as one of its steps (http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html). Similarly, threats and the impacts document. One way to handle this (other than what I've already suggested) might be to explicitly note that the respective documents should cover these topics. For example (edits set off by [[ ]]): - Architecture description: This document will describe the architecture of the entire LISP system, making it easier to read the rest of the LISP specifications and providing a basis for discussion about the details of the LISP protocols. [[The document will cover relevant issues including though not limited to cache management and ETR synchronization.]] and - A description of the impacts of LISP: This document will describe the problems that LISP is intended to address and the impacts that employing LISP has. While the work on LISP was initiated by Internet routing scaling concerns, there has also been an interest on improved solutions to a number of different problems, such as traffic engineering. This document should describe problem areas (such as scaling or traffic engineer) where LISP is expected to have a positive effect, as well as any tradeoffs that are caused by LISP's design. [[The document will discuss potential security- related impacts, whether positive or negative.]] Regards, --John