Re: [Ecrit] Review of LoST-04, part 1

["Tom-PT Taylor" <taylor at nortel.com>]

Hi. One remark.

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> thanks for your review and your text proposals. Please find my response 
> below:
>
> Tom-PT Taylor wrote:
> > I've hardly started to put out comments, but given the contentious 
> > nature of definitions, I figured this should hit the list now. I'm not 
> > wedded to the proposed definitions, but I think they capture the usage 
> > within LoST-04.
> >
> > 1. Organization of the document
> > -------------------------------
> >
> > I find that the presentation in lost-03 has a few things out of place:
> >
> > -- Section 3 is specific to usage of the <findService> message, so it
> > really belongs in the introduction to section 7.
>
> You are right.
>
> I, however, think that we should extend Section 3 by including the other 
> message exchanges to give an overview what will be described later.
>
> > -- Section 5 is specific to the <findServiceResponse> message, so it
> > belongs in section 7.4, immediately after section 7.4.1. A high-level
> > understanding of the intent of <mapping> is all that is needed up to
> > that point.
> That's certainly possible. When we decided to move the <mapping> element 
> section we thought that it would be useful since it is one of the core 
> building blocks.

[PTT] This goes to the heart of one of Jonathan's remarks. You are 
thinking of data structures, where I assumed LoST-04 was documentation 
of a protocol. Viewed in that latter light, no matter how much effort 
went into the definition of <mapping>, it is just one information 
element of just one of the messages in the protocol, and (I think) 
should be documented in its proper place relative to that protocol 
description.

...

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit