Forwarding and Control Element Separation (forces)

Deleganes, Ellen M | 2 Jan 2007 23:44

Re: [model] section 3.2.4 Metadata

<Sorry if you get this twice - I removed the digital signature, which
seems to cause problems in people being able to see the email>

I see very little value in section 3.2.4.1 - mostly it is a long winded
definition of metadata and only a small part of it says anything about
how
it relates to the ForCES model.

Isn't the paragraph under 3.2.4 sufficient to describe what we mean by
metadata in the ForCES model? (e.g. it is the per-packet state that is
passed from one LFB to another and that the only metadata model that is
of
concern to the ForCES model is the metadata that is passed from one LFB
to
another within an FE).

If no one will have heartburn about removing section 3.2.4.1, I will
take it
out and try to work on rewriting the rest of the section to make it more
readable.

Regards,
Ellen

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:FORCES <at> PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 7:56 AM
To: FORCES <at> PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: [model] section 3.2.4 Metadata

(Continue reading)

headers

tom.petch | 3 Jan 2007 16:23

Re: [model] section 3.2.4 Metadata

I had few problems with 3.2.4, it seemed mostly clear and well expressed.  I was
less clear at the end of -model how much of it was needed.

Two points are made in 3.2.4.1 that I would not like to lose:

- metadata may exist as part of the internal functioning of an FE but that is
outside the scope of the model
- the metadata defined in -model is only a model to make clear the operation
of -protocol; it is -protocol to which a compliant implementation must conform

That said, there are examples, probably many, where the model in an RFC does get
taken literally by implementors, probably because it can be understood with more
confidence than the protocol.  In this instance, I did not understand -protocol
until I had read -model.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deleganes, Ellen M" <ellen.m.deleganes <at> intel.com>
To: <FORCES <at> PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [model] section 3.2.4 Metadata

<Sorry if you get this twice - I removed the digital signature, which
seems to cause problems in people being able to see the email>

I see very little value in section 3.2.4.1 - mostly it is a long winded
definition of metadata and only a small part of it says anything about
how
it relates to the ForCES model.

(Continue reading)

headers

Jamal Hadi Salim | 4 Jan 2007 15:52

Re: [model] section 3.2.4 Metadata

On Wed, 2007-03-01 at 16:23 +0100, tom.petch wrote:
> I had few problems with 3.2.4, it seemed mostly clear and well expressed.  I was
> less clear at the end of -model how much of it was needed.

That is the major problem i had as well. Actually more than that is i
was weeding through irrelevant text trying to get to the relevant points
unnecessarily. There are also a lot of relevant (to the model) points
missing. Having said that i dont see it an issue if this section or a
variation of it was in an appendix or even better off as a separate doc.

> Two points are made in 3.2.4.1 that I would not like to lose:
> 
> - metadata may exist as part of the internal functioning of an FE but that is
> outside the scope of the model
> - the metadata defined in -model is only a model to make clear the operation
> of -protocol; it is -protocol to which a compliant implementation must conform
> 

I think these are valuable points which need to be captured regardless
of how the text ends being.
Ellen, I have offered to take a crack at sanitizing this section. I
think it is more than just getting rid of that section. If you look at
other equivalent text such as one on events etc - you will see
preciseness and brevity that is called for. Give me some time since i am
prioritizing going over the draft sequentially.
So i am putting this as an action item for me which i will probably get
back to when i go past section 5. I could make it higher priority if you
think thats more important than going over the rest of the draft first.

> That said, there are examples, probably many, where the model in an RFC does get

(Continue reading)

headers

Deleganes, Ellen M | 4 Jan 2007 16:53

Re: [model] section 3.2.4 Metadata

Jamal,

I think we're on the same page in terms of the entire text needing to be
rewritten or at least heavily edited. The section that I suggested
deleting was one of the obvious first things to do since only the two
items that Tom pointed out appeared to be of any value or meaning as far
as the model draft is concerned.

Throughout there is still a lot of superfluous and redundant text that
could be removed and/or streamlined. This section reads more like a
tutorial on metadata rather than how it is used in the context of the
ForCES model. 

I hadn't realized that you volunteered to rewrite this, go ahead. I
don't really have the time in any case.

Regards,
Ellen

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:FORCES <at> PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:52 AM
To: FORCES <at> PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Re: [model] section 3.2.4 Metadata

On Wed, 2007-03-01 at 16:23 +0100, tom.petch wrote:
> I had few problems with 3.2.4, it seemed mostly clear and well
expressed.  I was
> less clear at the end of -model how much of it was needed.

(Continue reading)