Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha

[Jamal Hadi Salim <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
>