Re: [XCON] Should we keep or adjust some of the redundant text in common-data-model?

"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> Fri, 17 June 2011 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: xcon@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xcon@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2079C21F8451 for <xcon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.374
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id upWfcv7hX55R for <xcon@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B07F21F844E for <xcon@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ros-dhcp192-1-51-84.bbn.com ([192.1.51.84]:53221) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1QXgIx-0008rN-1i; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:10:15 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <642D74C0-A298-47E4-A0C2-3819D4E093BD@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:10:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <412477E7-B78C-4CD3-AE9C-1B9063074592@bbn.com>
References: <642D74C0-A298-47E4-A0C2-3819D4E093BD@nostrum.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: pete resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, xcon@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [XCON] Should we keep or adjust some of the redundant text in common-data-model?
X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Conferencing <xcon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon>
List-Post: <mailto:xcon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:10:39 -0000

> What does the group think?
> 
> My 2cents - I agree with the principle behind Pete's suggestion, and I think my first read of the document would have
> been smoother without sections like 4.2.2. I think the opportunity for error introduced by drift as the
> documents are maintained is very low, but the editorial effort to avoid that risk is also very low.
> I am less convinced that the introductory material is redundant and think the coupling with, for instance,
> 5239 is maintainable going forward.

This seems sensible.  This document doesn't need to re-describe what's in RFC 4575 already, just the extension elements.  It would probably be good, though, to add a note to the first paragraph of S4.2 to say something like
"
The XCON data model re-uses the following child elements from RFC 4575:
  o <display-text>
  o <subject>
  o <free-text>
  o ...
"

--Richard