Subject: please review: draft-yang-forces-model-02.txt

From: "Yang, Lily L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:56:49 -0700

Hi, all --

Here is the new version of the individual contribution on FE model. 
A note on the revision number: we published to the list v02 in March but never submitted that version officially to the IETF database and so I was told that the only legitimate number that we can use is still 02. Apologize if that causes any confusion.

We encourage everyone to reread the entire draft because we believe we've made lots of improvement and progress, esp. if you are comparing it with the last official version v01. Comparing to the last version published on this list, the main improvement is on Section 5 "Logical FE Block Library" and 6 "Minimal Set of Logical Functions Required for FE Model". A lot of the content in these two sections was contributed by Alan DeKok from IDT. We are very grateful for Alan's contribution and his agreement to join us and combine his effort into this draft. 

The content in Section 5 and 6 used to be all within one section. This split reflects the current thinking among the authors that we ought to first define a small set of basic FE blocks as the building blocks for the most useful FE functions. That is the subject of Section 5. In Section 6, we go on to explain how such a set of basic FE blocks can be used to model all the required functions as dictated by the requirement draft. 

As always, comments are most welcome!

Best regards,
Lily

 <<draft-yang-forces-model-02.txt>>

---

From: "Putzolu, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:28:27 -0700

[David: Sent to ForCES list by [email-masked] but bounced
due to email mismatch so forwarding it to list] 

Hello Lily,

Thank you for providing this document.  It represents a wonderful 
improvement from the last version.  I believe this document is nearly 
ready to be accepted as a working group item.  Comments made by myself 
([email-masked]) and my colleague ([email-masked]) 
can be found below.

At a high level, this document needs substantial proofreading before it 
can become a working group item.  The feedback we are providing only 
contains substantive, not editorial, comments.  If the author's would 
like editorial feedback, we would be happy to provide it.

Section 3 could be more effective with some reordering.  Please consider

moving Figure 1 to the beginning of this section, before the two models 
are introduced.  It might make more sense to take a top down approach 
and describe the capabilities model before the state model.

On Page 6, still part of Section 3, please remove the detailed example 
of RFC 3318.  This level of detail is not needed in this document and 
only serves to confuse.  We suggest removing the portion of the first 
paragraph starting at "For example, in Section 4.1 of RFC3318...".

On Page 11 please remove the word "controversial".  It is not clear to 
the reader why this is controversial.  It is clear why this is
complicated.

Page 14, typo, I believe you mean to reference figures 5(b) and 5(c), 
not 4(b) and 4(c).

The information provided in Section 4.2.2 is inappropriate for the main 
document.  We suggest adding the first paragraph of section 4.2.2 to the

end of 4.2.1 and moving the remaining content to an appendix, or two 
appendices; one for each modeling approach.  Also, in the first 
paragraph please make the following change:  "there exists *at least* 
two  approaches..".  This paragraph can be followed by a bulleted list 
containing the names of the two approaches and potentially pointers to 
the appendix.

Section 5 is very good, though it would be nice if each block, described

in the library, had a standard format for its description.  One idea 
would be to, for each block, state the number of inputs/outputs, 
metadata, logical function description and so on.  This would make for a

clearer reference.

Please consider making the name of section 5.2 consistent with that of 
5.1.  We suggest "FE Processing Block Characterization".

thanks again,

- Jason Goldschmidt & Christoph Schuba
Sun Microsystems.