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

hi,


On 4 jul 2007, at 17.12, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

>>
>>> 5 Page46,table2,on GET-RESPONSE TLV:   (RESULT-TLV)* (what is the
>>> meaning of ()* ?)
>>
>> i think it was meant as a multiplicity indicator.  i will remove the
>> notation.
>>
>
> I believe those need to stay - we just need to explain them.
> + means "1 or more"
> * means "0 or more"


yes, i know.  however, i am not sure that using such notation is  
legal - i will have to check.  i am not sure i understand why this  
table needs the multiplicity factor.  the text needs the xplanation,  
but why should the table showing what is used in a message etc?

>
>
>>> 7 suggestion:we should add a tree structure for Packet redirect
>>> message,also for association setup response message,Association
>>> Teardown Message, config response message and query response
>>> message to clarify the format
>>> of the specified messages.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As it is just a suggestion and not a bug, I decline to do that at
>> this point.
>>
>> If someone else wishes to draw it up, i will cut it into the  
>> document.
>>
>> If I am required to do it, it will not get done before the draft
>> deadline.
>>
>
> I agree with Fenggen that the diagrams would help; i understand you  
> are
> trying to beat the deadline for submission; we should probably tag  
> it to
> be done later.
>


i think it might be nice to have, but i don't see why it is needed.

a.