Re: LC: draft-ietf-forces-protocol-10.txt>>comments

On Wed, 2007-04-07 at 16:06 -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
> hi,
> 
> I am currently working on processing the open issues.
> 
> These are the expected answers to this set.
> 
> Please let me know if anyone disagrees with the approach.
> 

All looked good to me except for the grammar multiplicity annotations

> 
> On 12 jun 2007, at 20.47, Jia Fenggen wrote:
> 

> 
> > 4 Page43,table1,on Config message:what is the meaning of ()+,does
> > anywhere explain this?
> 
> i think it was meant as a multiplicity indicator.  i will remove the  
> notation.
> 
> > 5 Page46,table2,on GET-RESPONSE TLV:   (RESULT-TLV)* (what is the
> > meaning of ()* ?)
> 
> i think it was meant as a multiplicity indicator.  i will remove the  
> notation.
> 

I believe those need to stay - we just need to explain them.
+ means "1 or more"
* means "0 or more"

> > 7 suggestion:we should add a tree structure for Packet redirect  
> > message,also for association setup response message,Association  
> > Teardown Message, config response message and query response  
> > message to clarify the format
> > of the specified messages.
> >
> 
> As it is just a suggestion and not a bug, I decline to do that at  
> this point.
> 
> If someone else wishes to draw it up, i will cut it into the document.
> 
> If I am required to do it, it will not get done before the draft  
> deadline.

I agree with Fenggen that the diagrams would help; i understand you are
trying to beat the deadline for submission; we should probably tag it to
be done later.

cheers,
jamal