Hi Roman; Thanks for the feedback, comments inline:
some first comments/observations:
- I think the structure of namespace could be explained
The original thinking was the NM-WG document, "An Extensible Schema for Network Measurement and Performance Data", would contain the entire explanation of namespaces (the idea itself coming from another OGF WG). Any future documents from related projects (NMC, NML, others?) would reference this and only note caveats to the original rule. The NM-WG doc is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15649?nav=1 And I think namespaces are in section 4. Does everyone think this is sufficient, or should we consider other options?
- example of status response in 4.1 does not explain too much (looks the same as earlier response example)
Now that things are in SVN, could you suggest a more fitting example?
- in 4.3.2.6 the concept of key could be explained more (for me the key represents some bigger information structure; reasons: performance, simplicity)
Good ideas, I will note these.
- in 4.3.2.7 the reference to "Characteristic" document is missing
Good catch, I will add a real reference.
- I'm wondering whether we can say in 4.3.3 that the request with more data triggers includes logical independent sub-requests
The concept of chaining is also something that Martin and I have struggled to find a proper location. Chaining is explained in sections 5 and 6 of the above NM-WG document currently. I think the basics should remain in NM-WG since the concept of the chain is essential to the definition of data and metadata. We may be able to reference the basic concept though to motivate some of the more unique cases.
- 4.4.1: typo "request schema"
I will correct.
- I would remove parameter elements "supportedEventType" from all message examples. I understand that it's supported by the implementations but it's agreed to use eventType element
I don't think this is a big deal, since these are just examples. I can remove them if we think it will cause confusion.
- I think we have to rebuild Result Code section and finish the discussion on new ideas proposed by Slawek and Jeff. That's very important and must be done.
This would be the current venu to do so. Has Slawek updated his document based on the suggestions that were made before the holidays? Perhaps he can send it again? Thanks; -jason