Subject: [XCON] Comments on xcon-framework-01

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:26:20 -0400

My basic concern with the document is that it suffers from metaphor 
overload. The document uses, at various times, terminology from 
object-oriented programming and data structures, architecture 
("blueprints"), XML schema, biology (cloning), Seattle haute couture 
("umbrella") and protocols (state) to refer to somewhat overlapping 
concepts. In passing, it introduces various one-time-use terms such as 
"umbrella". I was trying to read this from the perspective of an 
implementor that is conversant with object-oriented terminology (but not 
XCON discussions), but found the experience somewhat vertigo-inducing.

In the spirit of "send text", I'll shortly be sending text that (I hope) 
summarizes the intent of the framework, while trying to provide a 
shorter description that quickly gives the reader an overview of the 
basic ideas.

That text leaves out some of the details and examples, but for those the 
framework-01 document already has pretty good material.

In terms of document structure, it is difficult to read the document in 
sequence as the definitions make very little sense, given that they come 
in alphabetical order, before one has read most of the remainder of the 
document. I would suggest moving most of these definitions either into a 
glossary at the end of the document or at least after the overview.

I will be sending more detailed editorial comments to the authors.

Henning

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:16:38 -0500

Hi Henning,

Thank you for taking time to review the document and provide us this
high level feedback. I do agree that the flow of the document and the
order of the presentation of the information could be improved, with
perhaps a high level overview of the object model approach upfront
(which sounds like the detailed text you're proposing to send?).   It
would definitely be better to have the terminology at least after the
Overview section.  I think we need some basic terminology upfront (as
opposed to a glossary at the end), but perhaps we've overloaded the
definitions themselves by including too much detail upfront.   And, we
are certainly open to some changes in terminology and reducing the
number of metaphors, although in some cases the usage is quite accurate
(e.g. "cloning" is a common OO term and quite applicable to the model
proposed).  

We would certainly appreciate your further detailed comments. 

And, just a note to the other reviewers, whose comments we also very
much appreciate.  I think we have now received comments from the
majority of reviewers and we will be responding to the detailed
comments, with proposed resolution over the next several days. We'll
post individual emails for any issues requiring additional WG feedback. 

Thanks,
Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:26 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [XCON] Comments on xcon-framework-01

Henning