Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:02:54 -0500

Hi, Robert,

Thanks for the quick response on all the comments - 
to be explicit, version 8 addresses all my comments, except for one question 
(below).

It actually could be OK to retain the OtherMsg name 
and definition, if there is a reason to do so (one reason might be "deployed 
systems use this name and definition"). What I was saying was that it violates 
the Principle of Least Astonishment - you could also clearly define "3" as "2", 
but implementers would still think "3" was "3" when scanning 
quickly.

:-)

This is an IETF Last Call review comment, so other 
reviewers can tell you "Spencer is worried about nothing", and Gen-ART comments 
are never blocking unless an AD includes them in a DISCUSS.

I'll trust that you guys will do the right thing, 
which might or might not be to make a change.

Thanks for hearing me out. 

Spencer

  >    o  Number of other ForCES 
  messages sent from the CE
>       
  (forcesAssociationOtherMsgSent) and received by the CE
>     
    (forcesAssociationOtherMsgReceived) since the association 
  entered
>       the UP state.  Only messages other 
  than Heartbeat, Association
>       Setup, Association 
  Setup Response, and Association Teardown are
>       
  counted.
> 
> Spencer (technical): I think I know what you're 
  saying here, but you're not 
> counting "other" messages (because you 
  exclude some of the "other" messages. 
> The point is that you didn't 
  get into the table with Association 
> Setup/Association Setup Response, 
  and you leave the table immediately after 
> Association Teardown, so 
  you don't have to count these messages, isn't it? 
> :-( 

I agree, but I'd rather keep this explicit. As for 
  "OtherMsg" vs "OperationalMsg": I'd rather keep it as is, given that we define 
  what are these "other" messages. 
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf