Subject: [Policy] Inconsistencies in QDDIM -07 Draft

From: "Andrea Westerinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:28:30 -0700

In reading QDDIM very closely :-), I noticed some inconsistencies in the
text in Section 3, in the formal class definitions in Section 4, and in the
intent.  Here are my observations and recommendations ...

1.  For RED droppers, I think that we wanted the following ...
A REDDropperService can be related to many DropThresholdCalculationServices
(many to many), but each CalculationService examines a single queue (many to
one).

2. This means that ...
IF you define a DropThresholdCalculationService, you really MUST specify the
queue that is examined.  So, CalculationBasedOnQueue should have a
cardinality of 1..1 on the QueuingService side (currently it has 0..1).
AND
A REDDropper MAY be associated with one or more CalculationServices (each
looking at a specific queue).  So, CalculationServiceForDropper should have
a cardinality of 0..n on the DropThresholdCalculationService side (currently
it is a mandatory 1).

3.  For a HeadTailDropperService, its determinations can also be based on
several queues (as discussed at the bottom of page 23).  So,
HeadTailDropQueueBinding should have a cardinality of 1..n for the
QueuingService (currently, it has mandatory 1).  I agree that at least queue
is mandatory - but more than one can be examined.

Andrea