Hi Paul, Thanks for the review. It's very helpful to improve the document.
The changes made are reflected below. Cheers, Adrian > This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the > review. > > ISSUES: 2 > NITS: 2 A score draw. > 1) ISSUE: choice of term names > > Most of the terms defined in this document are very common words in > colloquial speech and writing. The defined terms are specializations of > their common meaning. In a standards document I fear it will be > difficult to discern whether a particular usage of one of these words is > to be understood based on its common meaning or the specific meaning > defined here. > > I suggest that you establish a way to resolve this ambiguity. I can > suggest several alternatives: > > - rename these terms to something that is not a common English word; > > - specify some typographical convention to distinguish these words. > E.g., special punctuation - 'State' > > - replace each word with a phrase that is recognizably unique. E.g., > NMOP-State, or NMOP State. > > Apparently you intend to use capitalization as a typographical > convention. That *might* be sufficient since in common usage these words > would only be capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, but it is > subtle and might still cause some confusion. If this is your intent it > would be helpful to explicitly discuss it. You raise a reasonable point. I think capitalisation will be helpful. And we will add some recommendations for other documents using these terms, such as: Other documents may make use of the terms as defined in this document. It is suggested here that such uses should use capitalization of the terms as in this document, and should include an early section listing the terms inherited from this document with a citation. > 2) ISSUE: Unclear Figure notation > > In Section 3, the notations used in the figures are not defined and not > entirely obvious. For instance, in Fig 1, what do the arrows mean? I > *guess* they mean "contains" or "composed of". Fig 2 is even less > obvious. The text describes what the diagrams are supposed to show, but > I don't see it. Perhaps it would help to place a descriptive label on > each arrow, describing the relationship. Clarity is important for the figures. Figure 1 has text that now reads "A System is comprised of Resources, and Resources have Characteristics." I think that is adequate interpretation of the arrows in the figure. The arrows in Figure 2 are labelled. Figures 3 and 4 are described as showing the workflow progress. That's enough explanation. Figures 5 and 6 are missing some explanation which I will add. > The text that references Fig 3 is itself reasonably clear. The key terms > in the text show up in the diagram. The arrows do suggest a progression > similar to what is described in the text. But I can't ascribe a > particular meaning to the arrows. They all look the same but seem to > denote different relationships. Is it intended to simply be composition? The arrows are exactly supposed to indicate the work flow that "one thing derives from another" and the text talks about each of these derivations. There is text missing to talk about Alarms (the dotted arrow) and I will add that. > Based on the text accompanying Fig 4, I guess some composition is > intended though not shown. E.g., multiple facts or states determining a > problem. Ah, I think I begin to understand that you hoped the arrows represented some specific explicit function that is the same in each case? They don't. They are just a general flow of control. And the explanation is all in the text. > I find figures 5 & 6 clearer. The arrows are still ambiguous, but the > relationships are more apparent from context. Well, I beefed up the explanation anyway. > 3) NIT: > > In section 1: s/focus on those events have a negative effect/focus on > those events that have a negative effect/ Ack > 4) NIT: Missing term > > In section 2.2 the term "control system" is used in the definition of > several other terms in this section, but is not itself defined. It seems > to be as much of a first class term as the others. So I suggest adding > it as a term. Yup. In fact both control system and management system were underspecified. This is fixed by saying "the system that controls or manages the network" _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
