Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous
"tom.petch" <email@example.com> Tue, 12 February 2008 14:56 UTC
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:56:12 +0100
From: "tom.petch" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous
Comments: To: Patrick Droz <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Some miscellaneous editorial suggestions 1 suggest that the reference to Terminology be made normative 3 Each LFB Class instance is identified by a 32 bit identities which are... suggest 'identitier which is' 3.2 A namespace is used to associate a unique name or ID ... suggest 'name and ID' 4 Each of the library documents will conform to the schema presented ... /will/MUST/ ?? 5.1 <name>FEState</name> <synopsis>model of this FE</synopsis> suggest 'state of this FE' 5.2.1 LFBs supported clause ... suggest 'SupportedLFBs element' 7 why isn't there a State declaration in response to a State query? 7.4 Capability attributes (components)will typically be read-only arguments, but in certain cases they may be configurable. ... but in 4.7.5 it states that capabilities are read-only so when configurable, do they not become operational components? 7.6 assigned identifiers with the scope of .. probably ok but I did have to read this several times - perhaps 'within the scope of' or 'with the naming scope of' 8 <specialValue value="1"> <name>Enabled</name> 8.1.1 still has 'enable' rather than 'enabled' 8.1 These two values are used by the LFB /too/to/ look up ... 9 assignment by IETF RFCs. I see this terminology as deprecated in favour of a more explicit Standards Track RFC or just RFC; RFC can be IETF or Individual Submission, either can be Standards Track or not. I think that this should be Standards Track, whether it comes from an IETF WG or as an Individual Submission, eg from a vendor. 9 If IANA extract the table and put it on the web site, it will not make much sense:-( Suggest putting in RFCxxxx and RFCyyyy with ---- note to the RFC Editor please replace RFC xxxx with the value assigned to this I-D and RFC yyyy with the value assigned to draft-ietf-forces-protocol 9 I observe the lack of a request to IANA to allocate the XML namespace:-) Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Droz" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:48 PM Subject: Re: Model Draft > Dear WG members, > > I would like to initiate WG LC on the model draft. The LC will end on > February 15th well enough to make the cut for the forthcoming IETF. > Please to take the chance for last comments. > > Thanks, > Patrick > > Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > Well, since no one seems to object ... > > > > Chairs, this is a formal request for a last call to complete work on the > > Forces Model draft, > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-model-10.txt > > > > Thank you, > > Joel M. Halpern > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Patrick Droz | email@example.com > IBM Zurich Research Laboratory | http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~dro > Saumerstrasse 4 | Tel. +41-44-724-85-25 > CH-8803 Rueschlikon/Switzerland | Fax. +41-44-724-85-78 > >