Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

"Hoff, Lawrence" <[email protected]> · Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:42:12 -0500


	I, for one, agree with the sentiment that criticism *must*
be constructive, and inherently comes with a promise of help.
	I also think that initiating the process of specifying CA
at the network protocol level in a public way has tremendous benefit,
not only in allowing alternate implementations, but also in providing
a framework for discussion of *existing* implementations. All involved
in the process so far should be commended.
	I do share Ben's concerns that this document is in its
infancy, and has the potential to mislead readers into thinking that
it is more complete than it is at present. It is also not clear to
me how open the process is for improving the document.
	I read through it and ended up with quite a few unanswered
questions (e.g. what should the CA server behavior be if a duplicate
CA_PROTO_EVENT_ADD message is received with an identical Subscription
ID).
	It seems to me that any of us who are capable of, and interested
in assisting in this effort must organize ourselves in a way that
allows such questions to be raised, understanding to be achieved,
and clarifications to be made to the document. In some cases,
such clarifications might even result in necessary changes to
*existing* implementations (e.g. to address situations not previously
anticipated, such as out-of-order packets).
	Is COSYLab interested in setting up a Wiki or other
collaborative environment so folks can pitch in and help out?
-- Larry

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System