[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
Steve,
I support pcn-architecture-06 as is.
My personal take on the terminology is that it is not wrong as is. Apart from that, having a stable terminology increases readbility of documents significantly. If it comes to the "rate and threshold terminology", PCN architecture changed terminology almost with every second draft in the past (I don't blame Phil for this). I'm not really interested in having to read contemporary architecture versions to understand any line in contemporary drafts and presentations of the PCN WG. It is further not nice to draft a document or a presentation and then change wording all the time as a new architecture version is published. I also was unhappy about Joe Babiarz presentation in Dublin, not because of the contents, but because of the terminology not folllowing the architecture draft. The presentation was hard to understand on the spot then and I need to spend extra time to learn individual author to WG terminology translations. As every author can claim the right to have his preferred terminology and my time is limited, I'll spend less time on reading drafts which are demanding already because of the applied individual terminoloFrom pcn-bounces at ietf.org Tue Oct 7 00:02:54 2008
Return-Path: <pcn-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pcn-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pcn-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D57E3A6928;
Tue, 7 Oct 2008 00:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pcn at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcn at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99EF3A6928
for <pcn at core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 00:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_FOLLOW1=1.332, FRT_FOLLOW2=0.422,
HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id saWuWNLpr9ii for <pcn at core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 7 Oct 2008 00:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [217.6.95.237])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884C33A6800
for <pcn at ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 00:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de (s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de
[10.151.180.168]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP;
Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:03:27 +0200
Received: from S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.10]) by
s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:03:26 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:03:26 +0200
Message-Id: <1B6169C658325341A3B8066E23919E1C01D6D9FF at S4DE8PSAANK.mitte.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <864b1db62edbb6688022b71b9421de85 at petri-meat.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
thread-index: AckiU1ucz/vZWTPjQwm1WoMfgblmVgF9IAsQ
References: <864b1db62edbb6688022b71b9421de85 at petri-meat.com>
From: "Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib at t-systems.com>
To: <slblake at petri-meat.com>,
<pcn at ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2008 07:03:26.0878 (UTC)
FILETIME=[CBCEABE0:01C9284A]
Subject: Re: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
X-BeenThere: pcn at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCN WG list <pcn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>,
<mailto:pcn-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pcn>
List-Post: <mailto:pcn at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcn-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn>,
<mailto:pcn-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pcn-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: pcn-bounces at ietf.org
Steve,
I support pcn-architecture-06 as is.
My personal take on the terminology is that it is not wrong as is. Apart from that, having a stable terminology increases readbility of documents significantly. If it comes to the "rate and threshold terminology", PCN architecture changed terminology almost with every second draft in the past (I don't blame Phil for this). I'm not really interested in having to read contemporary architecture versions to understand any line in contemporary drafts and presentations of the PCN WG. It is further not nice to draft a document or a presentation and then change wording all the time as a new architecture version is published. I also was unhappy about Joe Babiarz presentation in Dublin, not because of the contents, but because of the terminology not folllowing the architecture draft. The presentation was hard to understand on the spot then and I need to spend extra time to learn individual author to WG terminology translations. As every author can claim the right to have his preferred terminology and my time is limited, I'll spend less time on reading drafts which are demanding already because of the applied individual terminology. Othegy. Others having little time may do so too. I don't see the WG benefitting from this endless terminology debate and would like to come to an end now.
Regards,
Rudiger
-----Original Message-----
From: pcn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of slblake at petri-meat.com
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 6:49 PM
To: pcn at ietf.org
Subject: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
We will be running a brief (~1 week) last call on
draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-06. This last call will end on Tuesday October
7. Please send comments ASAP.
Diffs between -06 and -05 can be viewed at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff
Use the following URLs to reference -05 and -06:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-06.txt
There are some known edits that have to be made before we can submit to the
IESG:
- Correct references to Internet Drafts to indicate "Work in Progress"
- Fix formatting errors detected by ID-nits
Regards,
// Steve
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
rs having little time may do so too. I don't see the WG benefitting from this endless terminology debate and would like to come to an end now.
Regards,
Rudiger
-----Original Message-----
From: pcn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of slblake at petri-meat.com
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 6:49 PM
To: pcn at ietf.org
Subject: [PCN] Second Last Call for draft-ietf-pcn-architecture
We will be running a brief (~1 week) last call on
draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-06. This last call will end on Tuesday October
7. Please send comments ASAP.
Diffs between -06 and -05 can be viewed at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff
Use the following URLs to reference -05 and -06:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-05.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-06.txt
There are some known edits that have to be made before we can submit to the
IESG:
- Correct references to Internet Drafts to indicate "Work in Progress"
- Fix formatting errors detected by ID-nits
Regards,
// Steve
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn
_______________________________________________
PCN mailing list
PCN at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn