RE: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

"Express" is better.  I am ok with that.
Thanks.
Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: diffserv-admin@ietf.org [mailto:diffserv-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf
Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:45 AM
To: Andrea Westerinen
Cc: Scott Brim; Dan Grossman; Diffserv@Ietf. Org; Policy@Ietf. Org; Bert
Wijnen (Bert)
Subject: Re: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for
draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

The way we have taken to using the word "policy" in our technology is
a bit strange - in normal English, "policy" is more abstract and general
than a specific set of rules. Hence the problem, I think.

How about "express" instead of "define"?

   Brian

Andrea Westerinen wrote:
>
> But, my issue is with the word, "define" or "specify".  IMHO, the SLS
> "defines" the values or behavior, and the rules "act on" or "realize" the
> definition.  I didn't equate "implement" with "implementation", but I can
> see the problem with that word.
>
> Does "realize" make it better or worse ("... the set of rules that realize
> the parameters and range ...")?
>
> Andrea
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: diffserv-admin@ietf.org [mailto:diffserv-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf
> Of Scott Brim
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 2:45 PM
> To: Andrea Westerinen
> Cc: Dan Grossman; Diffserv@Ietf. Org; Policy@Ietf. Org; Bert Wijnen
> (Bert)
> Subject: Re: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for
> draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt
>
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 05:55:31PM -0800, Andrea Westerinen wrote:
> > Focusing on #4.
> >
> > The text says ... "Therefore, the relationship between an SLS and a
> service
> > provisioning policy is that the latter is, in part, the set of rules
that
> > define the parameters and range of values that may be in the former."
> >
> > <Dan> My inclination at this point is to leave it as it is, unless
Andrea
> > can come
> > up with a concise sentence or two that can be dropped in.  I think that
> > policy
> > aware readers will understand that we don't intend to be restrictive,
and
> > non-policy aware readers won't be confused.
> >
> > Can we say "the set of rules that IMPLEMENT the parameters and range of
> > values ..."?  My problem is with the word DEFINES.
>
> "Implements" is worse because the rules have nothing to do with
> implementation (a standardization absolute).  If you think "defines"
> crosses a boundary, I suggest "specifies".
>
> _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
diffserv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive:
http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.h
tml

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
diffserv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html