Subject: [Simple] Re: Review of the filtering requirements work

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:05:56 -0500

Robert asked me to review the filtering requirements documents. I have 
done so, with comments following. In general the content looks 
reasonable, but I did find a number small and moderate sized problems. I 
believe all can be easily remedied.

	Paul

- draft-ietf-simple-winfo-filter-reqs-00.txt

Section 3.1: the last sentence isn't a valid English sentence. I suggest 
something like: "It MUST be possible for the client to define different 
rules for different purposes using a common filtering mechanism."

Section 3.3: s/criteria/criterion/

Section 3.4: There are what appear to be three requirement prior to 
3.4.1. Suggest renumbering the existing 3.4.* starting with 3.4.4, and 
then numbering these three requirements as 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and 3.4.3.

Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4: These sections use terms "expiration" and 
"duration of subscription" that apparently are intended to align with 
the terms "expiration" and "duration-subscribed" in 
draft-ietf-simple-winfo-format-04. However the definitions used here are 
sufficiently different to raise doubts. These should be carefully aligned.

- draft-ietf-simple-pres-filter-reqs-02.txt

The requirements are apparently intended to be identified as REQ 01, REQ 
02, ... but currently they are all REQ xx.

Section 3.2: there is one requirement referencing a presence list and 
another referencing sub-lists. There is no longer anything called a 
presence-list - that concept has been replaced by event-lists, which are 
not specific to presence. Filters criteria that explicitly refer to 
lists will need to be processed by the event list server, while it may 
be that other presence related criteria need to be processed by the 
eventual presence server and may not be understood by the event list 
server. These requirements should be refined to ensure that they 
actually make sense and are achievable in the context of likely event 
list server implementations.

Section 3.3, first REQ: I don't find this entirely clear. I think it is 
trying to say that filter criteria may only reference elements that the 
subscriber is permitted to request as notification content. If I'm right 
you could improve the requirement by saying that. If I'm wrong, then the 
requirement really didn't work for me.

Section 3.3, last REQ: s/combine/combines/

Section 4.1.1: The three requirements in this section all seem to be 
attempting to say the same thing in different ways. So I think this is 
just one requirement. Some of the text from all three can be combined 
into that one.

Section 5.1: there seems to be a large amount of overlap between this 
and section 3.2. I'm not sure the overlap is total, but it is confusing. 
My comments for 3.2 also apply here.

- Inconsistencies between the two documents:

In draft-ietf-simple-winfo-filter-reqs-00 the requirements are 
identified only by the section in which they are placed. In 
draft-ietf-simple-pres-filter-reqs-02 there are multiple requirements 
per numbered section, identified as REQ xx.

Either format is workable, and there is no inherent need for the two 
documents to be consistent, but because they are otherwise similar 
documents it would be best for them to adopt a similar style. For 
requirement docs in general the trend seems to be to use something like 
REQ-xx, so that may be best.

Section 5 of winfo-filter-reqs is content free. Yet the contents of the 
corresponding section 6 of pres-filter-reqs, with the exception of the 
last requirement pertaining to lists, seems to be applicable. Why not 
align them?

Section 4.2 of pres-filter-reqs is gratuitously different than sections 
4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of winfo-filter-reqs. It appears that the same 
requirements should apply to both. For the most part the requirements in 
pres-filter-reqs seem better. They at least should be aligned.

=============================================================================

Robert Sparks wrote:
> Paul -
> 
> Would you please review 
> 
> draft-ietf-simple-winfo-filter-reqs-00.txt
> and
> draft-ietf-simple-pres-filter-reqs-02.txt
> 
> from a technical perspective (do the drafts accurately
> reflect list discussion and are they complete) and send
> comments to the SIMPLE list by Nov 26?
> 
> The drafts are short - I do not expect review of the both of 
> them to take more than a couple of hours.
> 
> I'm going to task other people to do I-D nit reviews, but if
> you have time to do that as well, more eyes are better than
> fewer.
> 
> Thanks!
> RjS
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:05:56 -0500

Paul