Subject: Basic Packages

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:32:26 -0400

I have been trying diligently to rewrite the basic packages
document the way I think it should be done.  I have not
finished, but I think I have a residential gateway (dumb
and smart), and a basic phone package (but not the trunk
gateway).

You will find it attached.  This will clearly be a major
topic next week in Red Bank, so it would be nice to have
comments, pro and con about this, vs. the one posted by
Mike and Zack.

---

From: Peter Blatherwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:51:07 -0400

Brian:

This, I'm sure, will be a major work item for several of us this week at the
Red Bank ITU SG-16 meeting.  I wish to state my opinion to the list to see
if there's further reaction either way from those not at Red Bank.

I am not in favor of changing the form of the Generic Packages document at
this stage of the game.  It has already undergone significant work, editing
sessions, and agreement amongst several contributors.  While there are
aspects of your proposal I like, we can't afford the distraction of looking
at other ways to document at this point.  We must concentrate on getting the
content right.  I also happen to think the current format works quite well,
and have no problems with it.

That being said, here are some comments on specific parts of your proposal I
think we should consider reusing.

* Intro should describe that general purpose, line side, trunk side and ROOT
packages are all described, as in your Abstract.

* We need some words around the subclassing concepts introduced.  You
proposal touches on this very lightly, and should be used and expanded upon.
Similar words need to be put into the Protocol document I think.

* We should look more carefully at the structuring you suggest for some of
the packages in relation to each other, especially in the lines/tones area,
and see what's appropriate for the final document.  (The user interface
related elements don't work well for me.)

* We should discuss the idea of IANA-maintained well know names such as
keyIds.  Personally, I think this is not necessary as long as we have a
definition somewhere accessible to developers -- its the package names that
are important.  Still, it seems worth some discussion.

-- Peter Blatherwick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Rosen [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 16:32
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      Basic Packages
>
>  << File: BasicPkg.doc >>