Re: [issue97] 3.1. FE Capability Model and State Model

I wish we had been more explicit in the first place.  I know there 
was something specific we were thinking of.
(I think that the reason we were not more explicit was to avoid 
insulting other people's work.)
I'll need to reread this and see what I can remember / deduce.

Yours,
Joel

At 11:41 AM 11/8/2006, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

>New submission from Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]>:
>
>3.1. FE Capability Model and State Model
>
>
>" While one could try and build an object model to fully represent the
>   FE capabilities, other efforts found this to be a significant
>   undertaking."
>
>It would be useful to have a reference to something that found this to
>be a "significant undertaking". Further below there is a talk about two
>PIBs which seem to involve a solution to the "significant understaking".
>If they are also the source of this knowledge then text needs to be
>representative
>
>----------
>category: Editorial
>draft: draft-ietf-forces-model
>messages: 475
>nosy: FORCES, ellen, jamal, joel
>priority: May fix
>status: No discussion
>title: 3.1. FE Capability Model and State Model
>
>___________________________________________________
>Forces issue tracker <[email protected]>
><http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue97>
>___________________________________________________