[salud] Revision of the examples

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 17 January 2014 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@shell01.TheWorld.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E2B1AE188 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:46:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FeUi5ZiRi2Wg for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TheWorld.com (pcls6.std.com [192.74.137.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5DD71ACD02 for <salud@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:46:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.theworld.com [192.74.137.71]) by TheWorld.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0HKjBn6009445; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:45:13 -0500
Received: from shell01.TheWorld.com (localhost.theworld.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s0HKf6R43074218; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:41:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from worley@localhost) by shell01.TheWorld.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id s0HKf6DN3073812; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:41:06 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:41:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <201401172041.s0HKf6DN3073812@shell01.TheWorld.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Laura Liess <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com>
In-reply-to: <CACWXZj39wsahY-=VN1e7a=wLK_55H=oVYkeSbRrUce+jMzH_Vg@mail.gmail.com> (laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com)
References: <201311201944.rAKJiS7d5355422@shell01.TheWorld.com> <528D41F2.8090200@alum.mit.edu> <CACWXZj39wsahY-=VN1e7a=wLK_55H=oVYkeSbRrUce+jMzH_Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: salud@ietf.org
Subject: [salud] Revision of the examples
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:46:16 -0000

In Laura's message of 6 Jan, she gives a revision of the examples, but
the -10 version uses a more detailed revision I provided a few days
later.  However, Laura's version includes this further explanation at
the end of example 4 (9.2.4):

   So we choose the Signal 3.  Note that <urn:alert:priority:low> could
   not be given effect because it followed <urn:alert:source:internal>.
   If the two URNs had appeared in the reverse order, the Signal 2 would
   have been chosen, because <urn:alert:priority:low> would have been
   given precedence.

This is a useful observation, and it didn't make it into -10.  All -10
has is "So the Signal 3 "internal" is chosen.", which comes from my
version.  I suggest replacing this sentence with Laura's paragraph.

Dale