Re: TML Service Primitive Update

I think I have a philosophical difference with the authors of the TML 
Service primitives draft as to the purpose of the draft.

I do not believe, as the draft states, that it is a goal of the draft 
to provide sufficient specification to allow PL implementations from 
one vendor to work with TML implementations from another vendor.

My view of the TML service primitives (which I asked for quite 
vociferously) is that they define two things:
The services that the PL definition can assume from the TML, so taht 
we can define the PL cleanly;
The services any TML must provide to the TML so that we can verify 
that a TML proposal meets the needs.
(Those two ought to be the same.)

While people may eventually be able to get protocol stacks from other 
vendors, and even parts of stacks, internal interfaces and internal 
interface consistency are not our goal.

I believe that this primarily affects the introductory material, and 
not the substance of the document.  But it affects why the rest of 
the document is now reasonable.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 10:39 PM 11/3/2006, Weiming Wang wrote:
>Dear Chairs and ForCES participants,
>
>Attached is the updated TML Service primtive draft that we are going 
>to submit soon after the meeting. The authors are sorry to have 
>missed the submision deadline before the meeting. We just have had 
>some extra discussions among the authors after the update was first 
>made before the deadline, which delayed our schedule a little.
>
>The update is mainly based on discussions on the ForCES list made 
>for TML SP. Some key changes are:
>1. removed all XML descriptions for TML.
>2. mostly rewrote the TML events part
>3. modified the SP format and the parameters.
>
>More comments from list are very much appreciated before we could 
>submit it soon after the meeting.
>
>Thanks a lot.
>
>Weiming