Subject: Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha

From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:39:18 +0300

Thank you very much for the review.

> Section 5 needs to give clear and unambiguous instructions to the IANA.
> It seems that the text in Section 5 is currently a placeholder for the
correct text.

Looking on the IANA considerations I am not exactly sure how to address the
issue.

In my mind there are two possibilities.

1. Update the "Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class
Identifiers" https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/forces.xml by adding
one more column "LFB Version" after (or before) the LFB Class Name. Value of
1.0 for all existing LFBs and then add a new row for Version 1.1 after the
FE Protocol Object for version 1.1. 

2. Update the FEPO reference with [RFC5810] v1.0, [CEHA RFC] v.1.1.

I'm more inclined to go for the first one but that would require
restructuring of the IANA page. 
What should be the proper way forward?

> Section 3.1.1
>
> "CEID" is used without expansion. Although sometimes I find "CE ID" for
example in 3.1.2.

The CEID refers to a component in the FE Protocol Object. The CE ID refers
to the ID of the CE. There were a few discrepancies but have been fixed. The
CEID is now followed by the word "component" while the CE ID is not. Will
that be sufficient to remove the confusion?

The rest of the comments have been applied to the new version that will be
submitted as soon as we decide on the IANA considerations.

Regards,
Evangelos Haleplidis.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:31:51 +0100

Hello,

> What should be the proper way forward?

I was hoping that Jamal would know what needed to be done here.
I think you are saying that the LFB class identifier in the registry points to
XML present in the referenced document.
Thus, previously, when you saw LFB Class Identifier 2, you knew to look in RFC
5810 for the XML for the LFB.

Now you have confusion. Does LFB Class Identifier 2 refer to the FEPO LFB v1.0
in RFC 5810, the FEPO LFB v1.1 in this I-D, or both?

I can't answer that question for you!

However, since I see the version number embedded in the XML, I am relatively
sure that this document:
- updates RFC 5810 by replacing the XML
- should be referenced alongside RFC 5810 in the registry

Note that updating 5810 requires a little work to:
- mention it in the meta-data
- note it in the Introduction "This document updates foo by doing bah."
- explain it in a short paragraph in the introduction.

> that be sufficient to remove the confusion?

It would be nice if the first usage of each expanded it into English.

Cheers,
Adrian