Re: [Dime] DOIC Default Algorithm Specification

JJ,

I agree, when we do this, we will try to minimize impact to the draft, 
but there will be changes in the overall structure.  It will definitely 
be done in a way that does not change any of the normative requirements 
in the draft.

This will likely be the primary focus of the -03 version of the draft.

Regards,

Steve

On 3/25/14, 4:02 AM, TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES) wrote:
> Hi
>
> I agree with Ben to differentiate general statements which are algorithm independent from the ones particular to the default algorithm, otherwise it may be a source of ambiguities/ misinterpretations . Now is this statement grouping into a referenced section easy? I do not know. I hope this will not have a too large impact on the draft.
>
> Best regards
>
> JJacques
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni Korhonen
> Envoyé : vendredi 21 mars 2014 18:46
> À : Ben Campbell
> Cc : dime@ietf.org list
> Objet : Re: [Dime] DOIC Default Algorithm Specification
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:18 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In re-reading dime-ovli, I noticed that the procedures for the "default" abatement algorithm are spread through several parts of the text. That's going to make life difficult down the road for a couple of reasons:
>>
>> 1) There's no easily referenced section that fully defines the algorithm. That will be a problem for other docs that want to talk about the algorithm (e.g. 3GPP specs), or even other sections in dime-ovli that want to mention the default algorithm by reference.
>>
>> 2) It makes extensibility harder, as it will be more difficult to define new algorithms, if they need to modify behavior that is spread throughout dime-ovli, rather than simply supersede a specific section of dime-ovli.
>>
>> I propose that we move all algorithm-specific behavior to its own section, and have any other sections that need to talk about the default algorithm reference that section rather than attempt to describe the behavior.
> That would work for me.
>
> - Jouni
>
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ben.
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>