Just few comments/observations:

1) 1.1. "...Finally, you will not find a definition for the terms Network or capacity in this document"
 RL: ...but there is a definition (or piece of information) of Network object in 2.1.1. This might be misleading for a reader.

2) 2.1.1. "...The meaning of the version attribute is only defined for specific cases (in objects of the Topology class), and should not be used in other objects. Clients that receive a version attribute for a non-Topology object should ignore that attribute. "
  RL: So why not to move this attribute to the Topology class? If we want to keep it in the Network object for possible extension in the future then it should be indicated clearly in the text.

3) RL: Do we really need Service and Group elements? They don't have any attributes or relations. For example, Node, Port and Link don't have Element abstract class above. Inconsistency?

4) RL: Do we need the list of attributes in 2.1.2 inherited from Network abstract class (the same for other elements)? They are already described in 2.1.1.


Roman






W dniu 2012-10-11 21:25, Jeroen van der Ham pisze: