Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] Outline

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:34:36 -0700

Weiming,

Thanks for your email...see my comments below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wang,Weiming [mailto:[email-masked]] 

Hi all,

I also definitely support Avri as an editor. And moreover, if current
scheme can
not work well later (as Avri worried), I suggest WG to appoint Avri as
the only
neutral editor.

Seems the 3+1 scheme can currently more widely be accepted, why not
let's make a
consensus on it and then move ahead quickly?
[HK] I believe there is consensus on the 3+1 scheme already, lets go
with this for now.

------------------
Hi Hormuzd,

If we are now writing an Informational RFC, I think it's reasonable to
take a
specific first layer section for example descriptions, but if we are
writing an
standard RFC, I think we'd better not to do like this. From my
viewpoint, it
just looks a little ugly in a standard document, because we are mainly
introducing the specifications of the standard instead to introduce
examples. by
saying this, I actully not object to take examples in the standard, but
it is
just for more clear understanding of readers. If you think the examples
are very
important, then they should not appear as examples. For instance, if you
think
the establish of association or CE failover scenarios are very
important, they'd
better to be included in a specific protocol description sections
instead of as
examples.  

[HK] I agree with your comment, the better terminology here would be
"Protocol Scenarios" rather than "Example Scenarios".

One alternative way is to take a section as "Implementation Notes" for
some
important scenarios, while take some introductive examples to the
Appendix.

[HK] It would be a good idea to have some "Implementation Notes" as part
of the appendix or may be even main sections. I have mostly seen it in
Appendix so I will add it there for now. We can always change it later.

Taking about TML requirements,  my feeling is it may be better to be
appeared in

protocol overview somthing like
3. (Some section like protocol overview)
...
3. 1. The Protocol Layer (PL) and the Transportation Mapping Layer (
TML)
3. 2. TML Requirements (or some other word)
...
My another feeling is if we should call it 'requirements', or we may use
other
word that is more relavent to describe TMP in PL.  To put it in protocol
overview may give us more time to have the the name decided after more
discussions on TML issues.
[HK] I am fine with this, we can make this change going forward if
everyone agrees. For now, I will leave it as a separate section.

Anyway, I agree with you that this (to decide the outline) is not very
difficult
thing after we have more discussions on important issues, my idea is
just that
currently we may not need to strictly decide it.

[HK] Agreed, I'll send the rough/initial Outline to David again, we can
make changes to it as we move along.

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol