Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-25.txt

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Tue, 19 April 2011 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D926E071E for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KM2ZcWZAGneM for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B424E069C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi5 with SMTP id 5so3803028pwi.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.29.104 with SMTP id j8mr9005462pbh.448.1303234931841; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.60.193 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [216.239.45.130]
In-Reply-To: <58E207308662A748A4AC1ECB4E88561408142CB8CA@ESESSCMS0355.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <BANLkTikd6=Bo4db3N4x9TFKKoKPUWOGMig@mail.gmail.com> <58E207308662A748A4AC1ECB4E88561408142CB8CA@ESESSCMS0355.eemea.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:42:11 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinLaisSOaAYJZ0s2QK6WBWpzxc3BA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Oscar Novo <oscar.novo@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Dave.Morgan@fmr.com" <Dave.Morgan@fmr.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, "jari.urpalainen@nokia.com" <jari.urpalainen@nokia.com>, "alan.b.johnston@gmail.com" <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-25.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:42:13 -0000

Looks good. Follow up:

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Oscar Novo <oscar.novo@ericsson.com> wrote:

> General issue: There is much discussion of the values of various elements.  There seems little discussion of whether exact case matching is required, whether white-space on either side of the designated values is allowed, and so on.  Is this obvious from the context of the other SIP RFCs?  It would trouble me as an implementor.
>  There are a couple of nits below where I've called this out.
>
> [ON] The RELAX NG shema is defining the syntactic of the elements. That's why the text is not giving any clear guidance about it. The implementor just has to follow the RELAX NG schema defined in this document.

So I think you need a paragraph in your introduction saying that the
syntax of element values is constrained by the provided RNG grammar,
which is normative; the text in the main body of the specification is
explanatory, but implementation MUST generate and parse content
conforming to the schema.

> 4.4.1 "The <allow-conference-event-subscription> element represents a boolean action. " - should 'action' be 'value'? (this idiom also appears several more times in the draft)
>
> [ON] I would say it's right. The element represents a boolean action. That's mean, the action can only take two boolean values.

The term "boolean" has well-defined semantics in math and in computer
language type theory.  It is not applicable to an "action" in either
of these senses.  But I don't care, it's obvious what you mean.