Hi Spencer, I released a new version of the draft to change to ZeroBasedCounters and took the opportunity to rename the counters as you suggested. Now they are called *Oper* instead of *Other*: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-mib-09.txt Regards, -Robert
"Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/03/2008 05:02:54 PM: > [image removed] > > Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces-mib-07 > > Spencer Dawkins > > to: > > Robert Haas > > 09/03/2008 05:06 PM > > Cc: > > "Patrick Droz", "General Area Review Team", "Jamal Hadi Salim", > ietf, "Ross Callon" > > Hi, Robert, > > Thanks for the quick response on all the comments - to be explicit, > version 8 addresses all my comments, except for one question (below). > > It actually could be OK to retain the OtherMsg name and definition, > if there is a reason to do so (one reason might be "deployed > systems use this name and definition"). What I was saying was that > it violates the Principle of Least Astonishment - you could also > clearly define "3" as "2", but implementers would still think "3" > was "3" when scanning quickly. > > :-) > > This is an IETF Last Call review comment, so other reviewers can > tell you "Spencer is worried about nothing", and Gen-ART comments > are never blocking unless an AD includes them in a DISCUSS. > > I'll trust that you guys will do the right thing, which might or > might not be to make a change. > > Thanks for hearing me out. > > Spencer > > o Number of other ForCES messages sent from the CE > > (forcesAssociationOtherMsgSent) and received by the CE > > (forcesAssociationOtherMsgReceived) since the association entered > > the UP state. Only messages other than Heartbeat, Association > > Setup, Association Setup Response, and Association Teardown are > > counted. > > > > Spencer (technical): I think I know what you're saying here, but > you're not > > counting "other" messages (because you exclude some of the > "other" messages. > > The point is that you didn't get into the table with Association > > Setup/Association Setup Response, and you leave the table > immediately after > > Association Teardown, so you don't have to count these messages, isn't it? > > :-( > > I agree, but I'd rather keep this explicit. As for "OtherMsg" vs > "OperationalMsg": I'd rather keep it as is, given that we define > what are these "other" messages.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
