Alex,
Thanks for the feedback.
see inline
Abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov(_at_)measurement-factory(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:33 AM
To: OPES WG
Subject: feedback on draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-04
SNIP
An OPES system MUST add its identification to the trace.
Any requirements regarding System identification? Is it
supposed to be globally unique, for example? If yes, then are
we proposing a registry for system IDs?? If not, then a
system can use "system" as an identifier and satisfy the
above requirement.
No registery is proposed.
Can u be more clear on what do u mean by system? Give an example please.
An OPES System MUST include information that identifies, to the
technical contact, the OPES processors involved in processing the
message.
This contradicts the fact that OPES processor tracing is not
a MUST, does not it? Given this two contradicting
requirements, it is not clear whether an end is guaranteed a
processor trace entry for each processor involved. Please
resolve this important conflict.
OPES tracing is a MUST.
I do not see why u say contradicting statment.
Each OPES processor MUST support tracing, policy can be
used to turn
tracing on and to determine its granularity.
I continue to note that the above requirement does not make
much sense to me. If a policy can be used, can I use a policy
that always turns tracing off and have that as the only,
hard-coded policy? I think this is a failed attempt to appear
directly compliant with an IAB consideration and it should be removed.
Alex, if your ploicy trun all processor off, then u r not compliant.
SNIP