[Nmc-wg] [ogf nmc-base svn commit] r11 - /

[svn at ogf.org]

Author: zurawski
Date: 2010-01-28 07:53:49 -0600 (Thu, 28 Jan 2010)
New Revision: 11

Modified:
   introduction.tex
   motivation.tex
   nmc-base.pdf
   nmc-base.tex
Log:
Adding comments from Michael on areas that need to be addressed.

-jason



Modified: introduction.tex
===================================================================
--- introduction.tex	2010-01-27 13:20:20 UTC (rev 10)
+++ introduction.tex	2010-01-28 13:53:49 UTC (rev 11)
@@ -5,3 +5,10 @@
 
 The work presented here builds upon the output of other working groups focused on the accurate description of network measurements \cite{nmwg} and topological representation of network elements \cite{nmlwg}.  When applicable, we will directly cite terminology and ideas from these working groups.  We do not describe a particular system currently in use, although several prototypes exist that implement messaging similar to this work. 
 
+% XXX jz - 1/28/2010
+% 
+% A comment from Michael:
+%
+% Add foundation/Convey intention(improve introduction?) example: why do we
+% have perfsonar(/nmc)? - not to 'sell it' but outline to convey intent so that
+% one can interpret the rest of the document better.

Modified: motivation.tex
===================================================================
--- motivation.tex	2010-01-27 13:20:20 UTC (rev 10)
+++ motivation.tex	2010-01-28 13:53:49 UTC (rev 11)
@@ -19,6 +19,17 @@
 \label{fig:exchange2}
 \end{figure}
 
+% XXX jz - 1/28/2010
+% 
+% A comment from Michael:
+%
+% Subscription isn't currently implemented as a fire and forget MEP(perhaps we
+% are not talking about the same subscription?)
+%
+% Other Notes:
+% Should read WS-Subscription std.  See what OSCARS is doing w/ Notification
+% Service.  
+
 Another interaction is the notion of a \textit{Subscription}, \textit{Notification} or other form of ``one-sided'' exchange. Services may use this to perform tasks such as subscribing to status updates from a service, or otherwise alerting a service or client about the existence of some key piece of information.  Figure~\ref{fig:exchange3} describes this exchange in detail.
 
 \begin{figure}[h!]

Modified: nmc-base.pdf
===================================================================
(Binary files differ)

Modified: nmc-base.tex
===================================================================
--- nmc-base.tex	2010-01-27 13:20:20 UTC (rev 10)
+++ nmc-base.tex	2010-01-28 13:53:49 UTC (rev 11)
@@ -115,7 +115,14 @@
 
 The key words ``MUST'' ``MUST NOT'', ``REQUIRED'', ``SHALL'', ``SHALL NOT'', ``SHOULD'', ``SHOULD NOT'', ``RECOMMENDED'', ``MAY'',  and ``OPTIONAL'' are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 \cite{rfc2119}
 
-\section{Security Considerations}
+\section{Security Considerations}
+% XXX jz - 1/28/2010
+% 
+% A comment from Michael:
+%
+% Security considerations seem to be absent, like the transport layer that soap
+% uses should provide integrity and privacy protection to avoid MITM-attacks
+% etc.
 
 There are no security considerations.