[fi-rg] Current draft of the document

[Thijs.Metsch at dlr.de]

Hi @all,

Thx for your input. I am going to work on the document this week. 

@Gian Luca: Do you have any ideas about the last chapter? I mean as goals?

Kind regards,

-Thijs

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Gian Luca Volpato [mailto:volpato at rrzn.uni-hannover.de] 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 22:16
> An: fi-rg at ogf.org
> Cc: Metsch, Thijs; Ralph Niederberger
> Betreff: Re: [fi-rg] Current draft of the document
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I have read the last version of our document and I would like to  
> propose you my quick review. Mostly I have streamlined sentences,  
> trying to reduce repetitions and making some concepts easier to be  
> presented.
> 
> I have also some issues that I would like to discuss with you:
> 
> - I propose to define a common terminology: sometimes we talk about  
> "dynamic ports" and sometimes about "ephemeral ports" (other example  
> is "well-known" and "well-defined" ports). Since these two concepts  
> are basically equivalent (al least for me) I would suggest to 
> use only  
> one term and thus keep a stronger consistency throughout our document.
> 
> - the descriptions of possible solutions are not homogenous: 
> some are  
> short, other are very long. I propose to remove the very detailed  
> example of "UDP Hole Punching" and leave the general explanation only.
> 
> - the description of the "Application Level Gateway / 
> Proxies" is too  
> much general. The first two paragraphs repeat concepts already  
> presented earlier in the document and the third paragraphs presents  
> the main idea in a too short form. Would it be possible to 
> remove the  
> first 2 paragraphs and extend the 3rd one with more info?
> 
> - the description of the "Framework for Token based Firewalling in  
> Hybrid GMPLS Networks" is also very long. Could we reduce it 
> removing  
> some parts?
> 
> - the last chapter (Summary) describes a very generic and abstract  
> solution that we should implement. I would prefer to set few clear  
> goals that we would like to reach and describe them in more specific  
> terms.
> 
> 
> What do you think about having a phone-conf to finalize the document?
> As Ralph correctly said it has no meaning to postpone further the  
> release of the doc.
> 
> Kind regards
> /Gian Luca
> 
>