Subject: feed back WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05: Definition o f a trace

From: "Abbie Barbir" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:45:04 -0500

Alex,
Thanks for the feedback.

Can you please state your own definition of an OPES trace so we can close
this subject once and for all.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:53 PM
> To: OPES Group
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05

SNIP

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:07:51 -0700 (MST)

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Abbie Barbir wrote:

> Can you please state your own definition of an OPES trace

I am still happy with the wording I proposed in May. Here is a
slightly polished version:

	OPES trace:
		application message information about
		OPES entities that adapted the message

	OPES tracing:
		the process of creating, manipulating, or
		interpreting an OPES trace

Note that the above trace definition assumes in-band tracing. This
dependency can be removed if desired. The definitions would be
accompanied by rules (e.g., "application bindings MUST define trace
format" or "OPES entities MAY perform tracing on behalf of other
entities").

I believe you did have definitions similar to the above in a few
revisions of the draft. The current definitions in the draft are:

>  In an OPES System tracing is defined as the inclusion of necessary
>  information within a message in an OPES Flow that identify the
>  collection of transformations or adaptations that have been
>  performed on it before its delivery to an end point (for example,
>  the data consumer application).

>  An OPES trace represents a snap shot of the tracing information
>  that have been added to a given application message.

>  A trace represents the collections of transformations on an
>  application message in the order that were performed.

HTH,

Alex.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:21:53 -0500

Folks,

quick update on the status of draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05:

Abbie is currently addressing Alex comments from WGLC and expects to 
submit a new version by Monday next week. We'll then submit this new 
version to IESG.

-Markus

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:35:22 -0700 (MST)

Markus,

	Isn't one more WG Last Call required if there were
non-editorial changes made since the last WG Last Call? Just want to
make sure we play by the IETF rules here...

Alex.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:32:00 -0500

> make sure we play by the IETF rules here...

We certainly post the updated draft to the list for review by the WG 
before submitting to IESG.

However, given that (a) we already had WGLC on the draft, and (b) your 
detailed comments were the only ones, and (c) that no one objected you 
suggestions, I expect to keep this additioanl review time very short, 
so that we submit to IESG shorty after.

-Markus