RE: [NSIS] Call for consensus draft-loughney-nsis-ext-02.txt as WGdocument?

["Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk>]

hi all,

imho the document is needed.

in terms of scope, I believe that the questions to be answered are
- what policies to adopt in extending GIST
- and then, since GIST defines the NSLPID, what policies to adopt
in deciding to create a new NSLP vs. extending an existing one

I believe it's possible to write useful general guidance on the 
second topic, without going into details on the extensibility issues
for specific NSLPs. With respect to the first topic, the GIST spec
already depends on the existence of this document (at the moment
implicitly, since it is so long expired ...)

it would certainly be good to draw on other protocol extensibility
discussions for both of these, such as the AAA documents hannes refers
to below (there is also Brian's extensibility guidelines document, not
sure of its current status).

robert h.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net] 
> Sent: 01 October 2007 10:52
> To: Martin Stiemerling
> Cc: nsis
> Subject: Re: [NSIS] Call for consensus 
> draft-loughney-nsis-ext-02.txt as WGdocument?
> 
> Hi Martin
> 
> I agree that such a document is useful.
> 
> There are, however, a few follow-up questions:
> a) When do you write such a document?
> b) What is the scope of the document?
> 
> Regarding (a): In the RADEXT and the DIME working group we 
> are currently producing documents that provide sort of design 
> guidelines, see 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-app-design
> -guide-02.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-design-00.txt
> 
>  These two documents are written based on the experience that 
> something went wrong regarding the way how people extended 
> the protocol. Maybe it would have been better to write these 
> documents earlier. Now we obviously have much more bad 
> examples to write about.
> 
> Regarding (b): Should the document focus only on GIST or 
> should it also cover the NSLPs? What happens if you define a 
> new NSLP - do you revise the document?
> 
> How far can this document go beyond the already described 
> information found in GIST, and the NSLPs? I could, for 
> example, imagine that someone gives details about the common 
> design aspects where you could essentially "steal" text from 
> existing NSLPs.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Some time ago, John wrote the draft draft-loughney-nsis-ext-02.txt 
> > discussing the extensibility of NSIS.
> >
> > It has been discussed on the mailing list, plus during the IETF 
> > meetings and it seems to be a good shape to become a WG document.
> >
> > Therefore, I would like to propose draft-loughney-nsis-ext-02.txt 
> > becoming a WG draft by now.
> >
> > This requires consensus of WG to do so.
> >
> > Please send your opinion on whether you like to see 
> > draft-loughney-nsis-ext-02.txt as WG document or not to the NSIS 
> > mailing list by no later than Oct 4th 5pm PST.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >   Martin
> >
> > stiemerling at netlab.nec.de
> > NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
> >
> > NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, 
> > London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nsis mailing list
> > nsis at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
> >   
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> nsis at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
> 


_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis