Re: LC: draft-ietf-forces-protocol-10.txt>>comments

I would like to see some more explicit terminology.  (I struggled last autumn to
understand -model and think that I will not be the last).

Above all, Section 6.4.1 needs more detail - I would add

"For any particular entity, this 32-bit identifier is assigned by the XML
attribute "elementID" in the XML element "attribute"; for examples of this, see
Appendix B."

(personally I would put this in bold, block capitals and use it as a running
footing but recognise that most would see this as overkill:-).

"SNMP MIB" should be "SNMP MIB Module" - the MIB is the virtual data store in
the Command Responder, the definition thereof in SMIv2 in an RFC is a MIB
Module.

"scalars or vectors" says to me zero or one dimension; -model uses arrays and
structures which suggests more; I would like consistency.

Everyone know "dot-notation (e.g., 1.2.3.4)." and knows that it means
x'01020304' don't they?  Or is the dot used here to separate the elementIDs in
the path?  Appendix B has "6.10.1.20.1" so presumable this is not dot-notatation
but ...   You should spell it out and if the latter is meant, then put a number
over 256 in the example e.g., 1.3.359 to reinforce the message.

Section 7; if the IDs in IDcount and IDs are element IDs (as opposed to the
other IDs defined in this document), then I would like that explicitly stated

Appendix B should state explicitly that it is normative; a common convention is
that appendices are not and some might, like me, expect the normative version of
the LFB to be in -model

"model draft" appears in several places - since this is a normative reference,
the model must be an RFC when this is

"Section (Section " appears in several places; not an XML problem surely:-)

Tom Petch