[feedback-report] ARF working group interest?

[Dave CROCKER]

Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> One of the main functions of creating the working group will be to take 
>> on the technical work of considering whether ARF as it is currently 
>> defined is necessary and sufficient.  That is, we should consider 
>> dropping stuff that’s not actually useful or ambiguous, and adding what 
>> appears to be missing.
> 
> Please let me state once more that ARF is not sufficient. What appears 
> to be missing are the indications of when and how to use it, 



There is a difference between specifying an overall system, versus specifying a 
component of a system.

ARF is component technology.

There's nothing wrong with considering the specification of a system in which 
ARF is used, but it is a fundamentally different task than the one before us 
right now.

To consider whether the current form of ARF is necessary and and sufficient does 
require considering a larger system in which it can be used.  But it does not 
require specifying it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net