Inconsistencies in QDDIM -07 Draft
"Andrea Westerinen" <[email protected]> Tue, 14 May 2002 15:28:30 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.policy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In reading QDDIM very closely :-), I noticed some inconsistencies in the text in Section 3, in the formal class definitions in Section 4, and in the intent. Here are my observations and recommendations ... 1. For RED droppers, I think that we wanted the following ... A REDDropperService can be related to many DropThresholdCalculationServices (many to many), but each CalculationService examines a single queue (many to one). 2. This means that ... IF you define a DropThresholdCalculationService, you really MUST specify the queue that is examined. So, CalculationBasedOnQueue should have a cardinality of 1..1 on the QueuingService side (currently it has 0..1). AND A REDDropper MAY be associated with one or more CalculationServices (each looking at a specific queue). So, CalculationServiceForDropper should have a cardinality of 0..n on the DropThresholdCalculationService side (currently it is a mandatory 1). 3. For a HeadTailDropperService, its determinations can also be based on several queues (as discussed at the bottom of page 23). So, HeadTailDropQueueBinding should have a cardinality of 1..n for the QueuingService (currently, it has mandatory 1). I agree that at least queue is mandatory - but more than one can be examined. Andrea