Hi Spencer,
I released a new version of the draft to change to ZeroBasedCounters and took the opportunity to rename the counters as you suggested. Now they are called *Oper* instead of *Other*:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-mib-09.txt
Regards,
-Robert
"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 09/03/2008 05:02:54 PM:
> [image removed]
>
> Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07
>
> Spencer Dawkins
>
> to:
>
> Robert Haas
>
> 09/03/2008 05:06 PM
>
> Cc:
>
> "Patrick Droz", "General Area Review Team", "Jamal Hadi Salim",
> ietf, "Ross Callon"
>
> 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