Page Comparison

#1 Michela Bevilacqua a number of classes are present in the glossary but no definition is associated to

e.g.BusinessInteractionItemRelationship, ConfigRelationship, ConfigSpecRelationship, ConfigurationInstance, ConfigurationSpecification, ResourceConfigurationDescriptor, ResourceConfigurationInstance, ServiceConfigurationDescriptor, ServiceConfigurationInstance

#2 Michela Bevilacqua some classes are not providing a description but just some indication not relvent in the context of a glossary

eg.

ParameterProfile

This class is abstract.

#3 Michela Bevilacqua :"classes" word is repeated multiple times in the doc

 #4Michela Bevilacqua : descriptions include too many acronym not defined in the glossary.

eg.

The VirtualLinkProfile class specifies a profile for instantiating VLs of a particular NS DF according to a specific VLD and VL DF.

#5: Michela Bevilacqua .enumeration as well as data types definitions introduced some "strange" section numbering

Image Added

 #6: Michela Bevilacqua enumeration description has is provided on multiple rows instead of a single row.

 #7: Michela Bevilacqua : we have repetation in the definition between description and contains enumeration literals keyword.

1.1.1.1.1        IpVersion enumeration

Description:

Specifies IP version of this L3 protocol.

Value:

• IPV4.
• IPV6.

Contains Enumeration Literals:

• IPV4
• IPV6

#8: Michela Bevilacqua : can we review this description ? I believe there is some required reviewed

1.1.1.1         Uuid primitive type

Description:

type string {

pattern

'[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}'; }

A Universally Unique IDentifier in the string representation defined in RFC 4122. The canonical representation uses lowercase characters.

The following is an example of a UUID in string representation: f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6 ";

reference

"RFC 4122: A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace"

 #9: Michela Bevilacqua ,same problem as #8

+

clarify STD 66.

 #11: Michela Bevilacqua : The Readiblity of this doc is very poor. Classes are grouped together but  it is difficult to understand grouping and look for a specific concept in the glossary. We could explore some options to increase readibility:

The split in multiple files in my view is only increasing the problems in terms of readibility.