Hello, Peter-san and all,
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:03:06 EST
PJohansson at aol.com wrote:
(snip)
> I'd also like to draw your attention to an editorial problem. At one point
> the group defined "function" to be synonomous with "unit architecture". At
> the time we were in the midst of discussions about function discovery and the
> like; the distinction made sense then. As I reread the document now, I think
> the utility of this definition of function has been lost. I think that the
> definition should be removed and "unit architecture" used in its place.
I agree that utility of the current "function" definition has been
lost, and the definition should be removed.
Though I agree to remove the definition, I think replacing the
"function" with the "unit architecture" is too restrictive because
definition of the "unit architecture" seems to imply that function
(or a set of services) resides only in the target.
One of the original intent for the "function" would be to define a
set of services provided over single login by a device (either
initiator or target). In this sense, there will be no difference
between "function" on the initiator and "function" on the target
because PPDT provides symmetric transport service, though current
definition only supports the "function" resided in the target.
I've created a text for removal of the "function" definition and
symmetric description at places referring the "function".
Please find attached document(RMFUNCr01.pdf).
In this document, I've also removed "management service" definition
because it was referred only once in the description of the
bi-directional blocking connection as an example.
Any comments?
Akihiro Shimura
--
Akihiro Shimura (shimura at pure.cpdc.canon.co.jp)
Office Imaging Products Development Center 3
CANON INC.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RMFUNCr1.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 15886 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.pwg.org/archives/p1394/attachments/19991126/95707f03/RMFUNCr1-0001.obj