[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: snmpconf comments on the minutes
on 06/01/2000 2:35 PM, David Harrington at email@example.com wrote:
> A couple comments.
> "During discussion, it was observed that capacity and usage/utilization
> feedback is an important part of the process." was changed from what I
> sent in. My original was an observation that feedback is important. I
> don't think it was meant to be limited to feedback about capacity and
> usage/utilization. I think it was meant to also include verification of
> appropriate expansions, etc.
Ahh...I see your point. The change was to reflect other notes I made and a
comment I made on this point. I will add in your comment about including
> I didn't capitalize a number of vendor names in the attendees list. they
> should be capitalized.
> A paragraph about scheduling being a particular type of mode shift was
> removed, even though it was discussed. Was there a reason for removing
Yes, I was not able to understand what you wrote. If you would like to
reword it I will be happy to include it.
> We discussed whether operators should be allowed to override policy.
> That discussion was removed from your version.
Probably I had the same problem. If you would like to write a sentence or
two, I will be happy to include it.
> "The BNF expressing the expression" might be better as "expressing the
> syntax." This was changed so as to not use "language" to describe the
> expression expression, but we have a whole section in day two relating
> to language issues. It might be wise to change the use "language" there
> as well.
Same comment as above.
> "SETs and compund statements - are not allowed in filters." Why the '-'?
don't know why, it is fixed now.
> In the mention of Perl, I should have made environment plural.
> You changed my spelling of accessor to acessor, which I questioned. I
> cannot find accessor or acessor in the dictionary, my C++ books, or my
> Java books. Maybe we should change it to "access" functions everywhere.
I had trouble with this as well though I think I had a correct spelling at
one time. The change may have been the auto correction helping me :-( I
checked and found it changed only in one place. It is now how you had it.
Steve Waldbusser, you started using the term. What is the spelling you
> "assessor functions" should be made consistent with other usage.
> I would change "Conflict Issues" to "Conflict Resolution Issues" to
> differentiate it from issues where the WG has conflict ;-)
> Under conflict issues, you have used single-spacing, while you used
> double spacing in other lists.
> I suggest you use a [end of list] marker in the minutes, to make it more
> apparent when the context has changed.
Done for my lists.
> "Andrew suggested that a team might want to do more work on this" was
> changed from my version that said "A design team was proposed by Andrew
> to capture the relationships for use not only by snmpconf, but by other
> working groups as well." I think my version better reflected the
> original proposal.
I think I have pretty his intent at the meeting correctly captured given
some of his email. If I have made an error, Andrew perhaps you could offer
David, thanks for the notes and for the careful review.