Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL68] Stress constants are not user configurable

I do not support the proposed change.

I am quite happy with the current text. The use of protocol constants in the way we have done is commonplace and this is a protocol specification, not a guide for dummies.

Philip


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:23 PM
Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL68] Stress constants are not user configurable


> Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
> next two weeks
> ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
> consensus given that this is very late in the process.
> 
> Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
> current issues and their status.
> 
> [ll68]
> 
> Description of Issue: Stress constants are not user configurable
> Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
> Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
> Date first submitted:           04 May 04
> Reference:
> Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]: e
> Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]: s
> Section: all
> Rationale/Explanation:
> Lengthy Description:
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> Also, we need to stress that these are MUST NOT be user-configurable
> options, or the users will just decide they can set them to zero to "make
> it go faster".
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> No user configurable options are mentioned in the text.  I do not
> understand what you mean by 'set them to zero.'  What settings are you
> referring to?
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> When you use symbolic identifiers in place of concrete values it implies
> abstraction (Generalisation; ignoring or hiding details to capture some
> kind of commonality between different instances), which implies therefore
> that there are different instances with different values for those
> abstracted identifiers.
> 
> If the intention is that different instances will have different values
> for these symbolic identifiers, then the draft should say so.
> 
> If the intention is that different instances will have NOT different
> values for these symbolic identifiers, then the draft should say so.
> 
> I'm just asking for clarification.
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> The reasons we are using constants are
>      * The WG called for it, primarily
>      * There has been an interest in specifying new sets of
>        constants 'in the future' for specific link layers which
>        might call for different timing
>      * Use of constants instead of values in the text is considered
>        absolutely necessary by many technical reviewers, for clarity
>        and style consistent with other IETF published technical
>        documentation.
>      * Use of a constant term assures the assignment of the term will
>        be in one authoritative place.  This improves the overall
>        consistency of the document and improves ease of reference.
>        In this respect technical writing parallels acceptable program
>        coding practice.
> 
> Requested Change:
> 
> TEXT NEEDED
>