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

Express it will be.

> "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