[Fwd: BOUNCE nm-wg@gridforum.org: Non-member submission from [AugustoCiuffoletti <augusto@di.unipi.it>]]

[Brian Tierney <bltierney@lbl.gov>]

From: Augusto Ciuffoletti <augusto@di.unipi.it>
Message-Id: <E186Ubd-0002JW-00@accapi.casamia.localdomain>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mcs.anl.gov id 
FAA167882

Bruce,

I mostly agree with you about the first point. But I do not "prefer 
physical
topology representations". I am simply suspicious about the 
effectiveness of
the abstraction introduced by functional entities: for sure, any 
abstraction
tool adds "descriptive power" to any structure, therefore I am convinced 
that
finding one would be an important result. But the restrictions that it 
imposes
on what it wants to represent (often abstractions induce restrictions, 
think
to "for" vs. "goto") should be well understood.

As for the second, I was pointing out that the document does not lose 
impact
if redundant definition are introduced. This is however indirectly 
stated in
the introduction. Instead, I had the impression that in some parts it
hesitates in introducing concepts that partially overlap. I understand the
duality available/achievable, and I'd certainly introduce "used" 
bandwidth as
well.

Thank you

Augusto