Subject: [Diffserv] Diffserv MIB - editorial comments (part 1)

From: Andrew Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 01:24:12 -0800

These are all editorial fixups on the preamble (up to and including section 6) - 
maybe more to follow on the MIB module itself).

Andrew

================================================================

1. General: make consistent Diffserv and DiffServ. Other documents have 
generally chosen "Diffserv".

2. General: several places where it says "Notice that ..." - these should be 
replaced by "NOTE: ...": this is standards-speak for indicating that the 
following is just explanation and is not making any normative rules.

3. Abstract: "Differentiated Services Router Informal Management Model" -> 
"Informal Management Model for Diffserv Routers"

4. 2.1 instructmentation -> instrumentation

5. 2.1 functionalities  -> functionality

3. 2.1 "and only mentioned" -> and is only mentioned"

4. 2.1 "By not including TCB notion in its parameters, this
MIB allow any grouping of elements to construct TCBs, using rules
indicated by the [MODEL].  This will minimize changes to this MIB if
rules in [MODEL] changes."
Grammar, confusing. How about: "By not using the TCB concept, this MIB allows 
any grouping of elements to construct TCBs using the rules defined by [MODEL]: 
that document should be consulted for the allowed combinations of elements that 
make up a TCB."

5. 2.2: "thru" -> "through"

6. 2.3 "full-filled" -> "fulfilled"
        "thru out" -> "throughout"

7. 3. "reuse" -> "reused"

8. 3. "intented" -> intended"

9. 3.1. "provide" -> "provides"

10. 3.1. "Functional Elements" -> "Functional Datapath Elements" multiple times, 
also in 3.1.1.

11. 3.1.1. "of none existence of DiffServ Treatments" -> "of non-existence of 
DiffServ functional datapath elements" (multiple times).

12. 3.1.1. "entries can be created" -> "entries can be configured" (they can be 
modified as well as created).

13. 3.2.1. "With each" -> "Each"

14. 3.2.1. "A data path
may consist of more than one Classifier, the order the classification
processes aplies to the traffic is the same as the order the classifier
table entries are linked in the data path." change to
"A datapath
may contain more than one Classifier: the order in which the classification
process applies them to the traffic is the same as the order in which the 
classifier table entries are linked in the datapath."

15. 3.2.2. "handles" -> "handle"

16. 3.5.2. "multiple drop processes ... be" -> "multiple drop processes ... to be"

17. 3.5.2. "parameters may include the sampling rate" -> "parameters may include 
the sampling interval or rate"

18. 3.5.3. "parameterized" -> "parameterize"

19. 3.5.3. Suggest reword:
"When
new scheduling methods need to be defined, and no new scheduling
parameters are needed, just need to add a new OBJECT-IDENTITY definition
in some other MIB, with description of how the existing scheduling
parameters will be used by the new scheduling method." ->
"If an additional scheduling method needs to be defined and no new scheduling
parameters are needed, a new OBJECT-IDENTITY definition can be made
in some other MIB module, with a description of how the existing scheduling
parameters will be used by the new scheduling method."

20. 4.1. Suggest delete:
"This example has been explained in sufficient detail in [MODEL] section 8.1,
please use that as a reference."

21. 4.2.1 "DataPathTable" -> "diffServDataPathTable"
           "ClfrElement" -> "Classifier Element"
           "seperations" -> "separations"
           "Minimumly" -> "Minimally"

22. 4.2.2 "mutliple" -> "multiple"

23. 5.2 "indicate" -> "indicates that". Other grammar also - but see tech 
comment on this paragraph.

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:29:57 -0800

Kwok and I are having an editing-fest.

>generally chosen "Diffserv".

We did so throughout the text. We did not, however, change the names of 
objects, as the capital letter separates words, and this in context seems 
like a separate word.

>2. General: several places where it says "Notice that ..." - these should 
>be replaced by "NOTE: ...": this is standards-speak for indicating that 
>the following is just explanation and is not making any normative rules.

Done

>"Informal Management Model for Diffserv Routers"

We replaced those usages with "[MODEL]"

>4. 2.1 instructmentation -> instrumentation

Done

>5. 2.1 functionalities  -> functionality

Done

>3. 2.1 "and only mentioned" -> and is only mentioned"

Done

>Grammar, confusing. How about: "By not using the TCB concept, this MIB 
>allows any grouping of elements to construct TCBs using the rules defined 
>by [MODEL]: that document should be consulted for the allowed combinations 
>of elements that make up a TCB."

OK

>5. 2.2: "thru" -> "through"

Done

>        "thru out" -> "throughout"

Done

>7. 3. "reuse" -> "reused"

Done

>8. 3. "intented" -> intended"

Done

>9. 3.1. "provide" -> "provides"

Done

>10. 3.1. "Functional Elements" -> "Functional Datapath Elements" multiple 
>times, also in 3.1.1.

OK

>11. 3.1.1. "of none existence of DiffServ Treatments" -> "of non-existence 
>of DiffServ functional datapath elements" (multiple times).

done

>12. 3.1.1. "entries can be created" -> "entries can be configured" (they 
>can be modified as well as created).

OK

>13. 3.2.1. "With each" -> "Each"

OK

>classifier table entries are linked in the datapath."

I think we came up with slightly better text; this has the effect of 
specifying the implementation, and we want to specify the effect of the 
thing implemented. So we wrote

"A datapath may contain more than one classifier. The ordr in which the 
classification processes apply to the traffic is conceptually the same as 
the order in which the classifier table entries are linked in the data path.

>15. 3.2.2. "handles" -> "handle"

Done

>16. 3.5.2. "multiple drop processes ... be" -> "multiple drop processes 

Done

>17. 3.5.2. "parameters may include the sampling rate" -> "parameters may 
>include the sampling interval or rate"

Done

>18. 3.5.3. "parameterized" -> "parameterize"

Done

>parameters will be used by the new scheduling method."

Done

>please use that as a reference."

OK

>           "Minimumly" -> "Minimally"

OK

>22. 4.2.2 "mutliple" -> "multiple"

OK

>comment on this paragraph.

OK