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

Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com> Mon, 19 November 2001 08:57 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22748 for <diffserv-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 03:57:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id DAA22606 for diffserv-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 03:57:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA21405; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 03:45:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA21341 for <diffserv@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 03:45:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from internet-gateway2.zurich.ibm.com (internet-gateway2-x.zurich.ibm.com [195.212.119.243]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22435; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 03:44:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by internet-gateway2.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA07332; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:44:27 +0100
Received: from dhcp22-51.zurich.ibm.com by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX 4.3/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA45898 from <brian@hursley.ibm.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:44:25 +0100
Message-Id: <3BF8C67D.9FF00C46@hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:44:45 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Andrea Westerinen <andreaw@cisco.com>
Cc: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>, Dan Grossman <dan@dma.isg.mot.com>, "Diffserv@Ietf. Org" <diffserv@ietf.org>, "Policy@Ietf. Org" <policy@ietf.org>, "Bert Wijnen (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt
References: <GGEOLLMKEOKMFKADFNHOIENPEFAA.andreaw@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: diffserv-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: diffserv-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Diffserv Discussion List <diffserv.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: diffserv@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.html