Thanks Jason, some comments on the notes: '' Some discussion on the agnostics treatment of SOAP/HTTP. It may be enough to forget about the idea of profile and go with a paragraph for information purposes, e.g. "done using SOAP over HTTP" '' personally, I'd rather see, even if you can trim it down to a single paragraph, that it would be in at least a separate attachment. This to allow updates to either part of the spec to occur without blocking due to the other part being out of sync. This problem only grows when there are more profiles. Not sure if it was poor wording, but saying something along the lines of 'informational purposes' is dangerous. If people use or 'bind' to the transport protocol differently then things simply aren't going to inter-operable. Which defeats the purpose of NMC entirely. Section 8 Security Considerations - I agree with the general train of thought, it should be trimmed. specifically the first two chapters, but I had trouble removing them whist not coming across as 'motherhood and apple pie' / 'it is because I say so'. The more concrete part of the notes need to be clarified. 'Subsequent revisions may describe Auth etc.' and 'AUTH is coming, describe it somewhere else.' it's only referenced, not described or defined? These parts could be trimmed further by referencing to the currently non-existent AA document, the problem is that you create a circular reference/dependency. 'Is it needed?' and 'DDoS considerations for an XML protocol may be overkill.' The correct handling of security aspects inhibits behavior, for this behavior to be managed communication is required, which requires protocol extensions. Even more important perhaps, is saying what you don't do. Which ties into my next point.. Does everyone have the same idea on what the intended audience is? I personally love to write stuff in a 'academic' way but if NMC is to survive outside it's sheltered position and actually get picked up by a greater community out there, you have to account for the average programmer and system administrator out there. When I say account I don't mean target or write for specifically but neither to go out of our way to make it difficult to comprehend for said group. Adoption of NMC is goal right? writing things down isn't a goal in it's own end. -Michael On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Jason Zurawski <zurawski@internet2.edu> wrote:

All;

I captured some meeting notes from OGF29, available here:

https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nmc-wg/wiki/2010062...

Thanks;

-jason _______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg