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

From: "Deleganes, Ellen M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:47:17 -0700

Sorry, I forgot to mention that section. You shouldn't have to reread
the entire document, just the section Alan mentioned. I turned off the
reviewing comments on the sections that were changed in their entirety.
Maybe there is a way just to maintain the change bars.

Regards,
Ellen

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 7:44 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-forces-model-03.doc - with changes turned on

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?

>  > -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.

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 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?

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