[nm-wg] Re: [ghpn-wg] comments needed on documents

[Franco Travostino <travos@nortelnetworks.com>]

Thanks, Bruce. Hereafter my comments to nmwg-hierarchy-02:

1) This being a candidate Proposed Recommendation, I find that the
*standard* text (ie. the one resulting in rfc2119 requirement levels for
portability/interoperability) is diluted in a large amount of: could,
would, in general, asides, anecdotal text. I submit the idea of splitting
the draft in two drafts. The first draft would be a lean recommendation
document, roughly up to Figure 3 included, and with a trailing terse
section serving as glossary of terms. The second draft would be an
informational or BCP document, with all the envisioned usages,
rationales, TCP vs UDP vs ... wrinkles, examples, etc., all without the
strength of rfc2119 directives (or else, it moves to the former
document).

2) With regard to the standard text, I further observe that the SHOULDs
are roughly as many as the MUSTs. By definition, a SHOULD is a gray area
when it comes to interoperability. It should be used as sparingly as
possible, and it works best when the "valid reasons" to take
exception from a SHOULD are matter-of-fact ones.

3) Precision and accuracy are two integral dimensions to a measured value
(e.g. time measurements). Where do you see these coming to bear in the
hierarchy?

4) I fully support the utility and originality of this work, to the
extent that I will be asking one more question: Would this recommendation
(and the derivative ones) be optimally housed in the IETF? I think of the
Grid component being a worthy catalyst for this work, and not its
exclusive consumer. My guess is that this work would get broader scrutiny
and impact in the IETF.

-franco 




At 01:03 PM 4/7/2004, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:


> Franco,
>         Following the end of the official 60 day period, Stacey Bruno copied all 
> of the comments on that forum onto the gridforge tracker: 
> <https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=414&aid=320&group_id 
> =90> 
>
> You may be able to add more comments there now.  They may also intend that 
> future documents will not have multiple tracker objects---I'm not sure. 
> Even if you can't, sending comments to the mailing list will serve the same 
> purpose.  I hope to get time next week to make some of the suggested 
> changes and get a new version uploaded.  I will try to address any comments 
> we receive before then. 
>
> Bruce 
>
> --On Tuesday, April 06, 2004 04:38:38 PM -0400 Franco Travostino 
> <travos@nortelnetworks.com> wrote: 
>
> > At 12:01 AM 3/22/2004, Bruce Lowekamp wrote: 
> > 
> >> Comments can be made at 
> >> <<https://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=349276>https://source 
> >> forge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=349276> 
> >> 
> >> (probably easiest just to post anonymously and sign your name, unless you 
> >> have a regular sourceforge (not gridforge) account) 
> > 
> >  From "regular" sourceforge, I get an unwelcoming "ERROR, Forum is 
> > restricted to members of this group" message. 
> > 
> > Given that this is the last step in the GGF document process, how comes 
> > that the collection of comments occurs outside of the GGF's own GridForge? 
> > 
> > -franco