Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 02 October 2013 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9C621F9C90 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 08:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.066
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xkwaxmd0tn4w for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8767A21F9D12 for <forces@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 08:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r92FvdD7022936; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:57:40 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r92FvZl7022884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:57:39 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-ietf-forces-ceha.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <02b001ce884a$a1585040$e408f0c0$@olddog.co.uk> <CAAFAkD-iZ7nPmt=LPuP_fepgR5iGh0gGu9ex1Q5M11L37bhrmg@mail.gmail.com> <000001ce896e$719cc370$54d64a50$@olddog.co.uk> <CAAFAkD_Qc9upLbip7isVjWxap1JDWsoiy=b5x9yERbFTb3Jcjg@mail.gmail.com> <005401ce91d8$cebba310$6c32e930$@com> <043d01ce9c38$d4470990$7cd51cb0$@olddog.co.uk>, <CAAFAkD9ArGhtR4yjqi=-QijvOC306JmSvei6WmSTGi+L+F-c4A@mail.gmail.com> <47c336e0b91d46afa25e7e8224cbd520@BLUPR05MB151.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <47c336e0b91d46afa25e7e8224cbd520@BLUPR05MB151.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:57:33 +0100
Message-ID: <01e501cebf88$1dd8fba0$598af2e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI6Q07702xNavMLAOpMwrNoOkw4/QDZ/dJYAYs+HZYBvSIYHwIFW19dAdMPOjgCI0uW4gJAyZjAmKeQuoA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: forces@ietf.org, forces-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:59:06 -0000
Authors, Why don't you do what Jamal suggested, post a new revision with this change and the others already discussed, and then we can move the document forward? Adrian > Cc: Haleplidis Evangelos; forces@ietf.org; draft-ietf-forces-ceha.all@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha > > Hi, > > I am sorry I missed this - Evangelos reminded me while i was trying > to figure out where the publication path is. > > My take on this is we should use new rows for each version. > But we also need a new column to identify the version. IMO, that > would be the best way to scale in the future if we keep adding new versions. > So if folks agree we would need to ask IANA for the new version column. > > The reference column will continue to be identifying which RFC/docs are > utilized and which are obsoleted. > > cheers, > jamal > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > Hello, > > > >> > Section 5 needs to give clear and unambiguous instructions to the IANA. > >> > It seems that the text in Section 5 is currently a placeholder for the > >> > correct text. > >> > >> Looking on the IANA considerations I am not exactly sure how to address the > >> issue. > >> > >> In my mind there are two possibilities. > >> > >> 1. Update the "Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class > >> Identifiers" https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/forces.xml by adding > >> one more column "LFB Version" after (or before) the LFB Class Name. Value of > >> 1.0 for all existing LFBs and then add a new row for Version 1.1 after the > >> FE Protocol Object for version 1.1. > >> > >> 2. Update the FEPO reference with [RFC5810] v1.0, [CEHA RFC] v.1.1. > >> > >> I'm more inclined to go for the first one but that would require > >> restructuring of the IANA page. > >> What should be the proper way forward? > > > > I was hoping that Jamal would know what needed to be done here. > > I think you are saying that the LFB class identifier in the registry points to > > XML present in the referenced document. > > Thus, previously, when you saw LFB Class Identifier 2, you knew to look in RFC > > 5810 for the XML for the LFB. > > > > Now you have confusion. Does LFB Class Identifier 2 refer to the FEPO LFB v1.0 > > in RFC 5810, the FEPO LFB v1.1 in this I-D, or both? > > > > I can't answer that question for you! > > > > However, since I see the version number embedded in the XML, I am relatively > > sure that this document: > > - updates RFC 5810 by replacing the XML > > - should be referenced alongside RFC 5810 in the registry > > > > Note that updating 5810 requires a little work to: > > - mention it in the meta-data > > - note it in the Introduction "This document updates foo by doing bah." > > - explain it in a short paragraph in the introduction. > > > >> > Section 3.1.1 > >> > > >> > "CEID" is used without expansion. Although sometimes I find "CE ID" for > >> example in 3.1.2. > >> > >> The CEID refers to a component in the FE Protocol Object. The CE ID refers > >> to the ID of the CE. There were a few discrepancies but have been fixed. The > >> CEID is now followed by the word "component" while the CE ID is not. Will > >> that be sufficient to remove the confusion? > > > > It would be nice if the first usage of each expanded it into English. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > >
- [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha Adrian Farrel
- Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha Adrian Farrel
- Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha Haleplidis Evangelos
- Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha Adrian Farrel
- Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha Adrian Farrel