Re: [Dime] DOIC Default Algorithm Specification

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