[Nmc-wg] Review of documents

[Freek Dijkstra]

Hi Jason,

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I really feel like a novice when it
comes to monitoring (coming from path finding...), but I very much enjoy
the discussion. Thanks!

you wrote:

> Regarding the issue of 'why nmc' instead of something like WSDL, the 
> idea was sprung from the original use case of encoding measurements. 
> The rationale at the time was if we were using an encoding scheme for 
> the measurements, wrapping a similarly constructed control structure 
> around each for communication was not a far stretch and may even make 
> the job of parsing and interpreting the information easier.

As I said, I think the ideas are good. You mention "at the time". Would
you do it differently if you were to redesign the schema? Perhaps my
actual question is: does this doc describe the current practice as it
has been done so far or is it an attempt to combine all good ideas into
the best standard possible? If it is describing the current practice,
would it be useful to improve it, or would that require too much
rewriting for application developers?


>> [...] automated syntax check for messages. Has this been done so far?
> 
> In practice services don't implement a strict schema check since it can 
> be expensive, but the tools exist for both major implementations to do 
> this.

Message validity checking was one thing advocated by someone from
UNINETT (The Norwegian NREN). I think it was either Arne Øslebø or Jon
Hellan. Perhaps Roman remembers who it was. We could ask them exactly
why they thought that to be useful.

>> Last, the wording could be better in some places, especially when it
>> comes to the RFC 2119 words (MUST, SHOULD, MAY). [...]
> 
> It would be very helpful if you could go through and correct these 
> mistakes as you see them - particularly since you have experience in 
> writing documents of this nature.  May I mark you down as willing to do 
> this task?

You just did ;-)

Regards,
Freek