Subject: Re: [issue66] Normative dependency on model (not clear)?

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:27:33 -0800

Weiming,

Your change below sounds good to me.

Thanks for all the good work closing so many issues!
I think we should be ready to send the draft by IESG review by next week
if we can get these changes in.

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Wang,Weiming
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [FORCES] [issue66] Normative dependency on model (not
clear)?

After some work, I think some model terminology related to protocol like
the
LFB, LFB instance, LFB metadata have all been included in the protocol
definition section, therefore I don't think we need the sentence in
definition section on refering to model anymore, i.e., to change the
text:

3.  Definitions
   This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES
   Requirements in [RFC3654] and by the ForCES framework in [RFC3746].
   This document also uses the terminology defined by ForCES the FE
   model in [FE-MODEL].  The definitons below are repeated below for
   clarity.

to:

3.  Definitions
   This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES
   Requirements in [RFC3654] and by the ForCES framework in [RFC3746].
   Some definitons below are repeated for clarity.

In Page 10, remove the following sentence:

   The following terms are defined by this document:

Please comments on the above change,and this issue is to be closed in
one
week.

Thanks,
Weiming

> David Says:

In the definitions section of the ForCES protocol, there is a reference
to
the
model draft. The reference to the model seems normative to me.  Is this
the
case?

Jamal replied:
"I dont think so - Joel? The dependency on the model at the moment rests
with the FEO; which we may end removing."

Solutions can be:
* Clarify that this is informative
* Bring the definitions into this doc
* Make it normative, then both docs required to become RFCs