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.