Forces Model draft

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> Tue, 29 January 2008 20:49 UTC

Message-Id: <TUE.29.JAN.2008.154952.0500.>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:49:52 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
Subject: Forces Model draft
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have submitted a revised draft of the ForCES model.
This is draft-10.  The working group page will presumably update over night.
Certain changes which were discussed have not been made.

I have not changed the threshold for events to deal with signed
components needing a negative threshold.  If anyone has a good idea how
to do so, I would like to hear it.
To recapitulate, for unsigned components the threshold needs to be
interpreted as unsigned.  For signed components, we would like to
interpret it as a signed threshold.  But short of making it a union with
two a signed and unsigned definition (which looks clunky, but may be the
right answer) I don't know how to address this.  Currently, we pretend
it is always unsigned.

I have not changed the XML to use <capabilityComponent>
<configurableComponent> and <eventComponent> (events are an interesting
case.  They are components for purposes of having properties, but an
event can not be the target of a get or set.)  This means that the
reader has to be a little clever to understand how we are referring to
things.  I don't think it is fatal, but it has bothered some people.

To find what I have changed, use the rfcdiff tool at tools.ietf.org.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: If anyone knows the correct incantation for getting xml2rfc to
produce an "intended status", and can tell me what it is, I would be
happy to add the Proposed Standard intended status to the draft.