Subject: draft-ietf-forces-model-03.doc - with changes turned on

From: "Deleganes, Ellen M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:03:44 -0700

Attached is the word document with the changes shown. In addition to the
changes shown, sections 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 were significantly rewritten
and 3.2.4.1 was added.
 
Regards,
Ellen

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:21:57 -0400

To the Model Design Team:

Back around May we had long discussions on the output ports  grouping
and metadata; I am looking at the updates and dont see anything updated.
Could someone please get back to me and tell me of the status of that?
It could be as simple as "we wont update any text because .." or
"we did update the text at section ...".

I am gonna hold on any comments i have until i hear back.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:40:00 -0400

> "we did update the text at section ...".

   I updated section 3.1 with a page or so on metadata.  Your earlier
concerns start here:

http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0403&L=forces&T=0&F=&S=&P=2267

   I will try to address them now.

 > -Is the modelling assuming the metadata to be of a certain size?
 > Last time i suggested a type/tag:lenght:value model, not sure
 > i got a response or not.

   The model assumes that the size of the metadata is sufficient to hold
any necessary information.  Beyond that, any "size" of the metadata is
implementation-dependent.  The schema discusses metadata, but that
should NOT be construed as restricting implementations.

 > -I dont see a mention whether multiple types of metadatum could
 > be received by the same LFB or produced by an LFB.

   I don't see why not.  Can you suggest a section where you would like
to see this text added?

 > - I am not sure if the classifier is a good example of a variable
 > producer. Seems to me it produces only one type of metadata with a
 > tag of CLASS_ID. A good example would be the IPV4 LPM example i gave
 > earlier which may create a NHLFE_ID tag or NH_ID tag.

   The LFB's can produce any metadata we want them to produce.  And the
IPv4 LPM is just a special case of a classifier.

   Alan DeKok.

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:43:34 -0400

On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 12:40, Alan DeKok wrote:

> I updated section 3.1 with a page or so on metadata.

Did you mean section 3.2.4? Yes, thats much better now.

The update change lines from Ellen are not reflective then.
None of your text was highlighted. Dang, it means i have to read the
whole document again for the 100th time.
Folks, Could you please maintain some way of change highlighting?

> should NOT be construed as restricting implementations.

Is this contradiction then to section 4 which defines the sizes as well?
I havent noticed that before - its probably new.
Maybe you need to sync. What i was asking for is what section 4 is
showing.

>    I don't see why not.  Can you suggest a section where you would like

Not sure where such text would go. Heres the challenge i think:
I think the majority of the cases(personal experience) would a single
metadatum thats being consumed or produced. The text throughout is
talking about metadata (the plural). So infact the text was already
there, its the common case that wasnt. I am not sure what wording to
sugest but hopefuly you get where i am coming from.

The rest of the issues seem to be addressed. One new one:
You seem to say implicit, internal metadata is not what Forces would
deal with. It also appears that explicit, external is the commona case.
What about the two remaining combinations? This is probably something
that should be clearly pointed out in the text.

cheers,
jamal