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.
- Forces Model draft Joel M. Halpern