Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous

"tom.petch" <> Tue, 12 February 2008 14:56 UTC

Message-Id: <TUE.12.FEB.2008.155612.0100.>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:56:12 +0100
From: "tom.petch" <>
Subject: Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous
Comments: To: Patrick Droz <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

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" <>
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,
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Joel M. Halpern
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
>    Dr. Patrick Droz                  |
>    IBM Zurich Research Laboratory    |
>    Saumerstrasse 4                   | Tel. +41-44-724-85-25
>    CH-8803 Rueschlikon/Switzerland   | Fax. +41-44-724-85-78