https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst
File source/drafts/relation-reference.rst (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst#newcode6
source/drafts/relation-reference.rst:6: relation name or the relation
id:
Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst#newcode18
source/drafts/relation-reference.rst:18: Relation ids are also sometimes
required. This is because a service
On 2012/03/15 20:19:48, niemeyer wrote:
> Start at "[A] service may provide an interface (...)". Here you have a
good
> introduction to why you're proposing a change to the current
mechanism.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst#newcode22
source/drafts/relation-reference.rst:22: ``mysql`` interface to multiple
consuming clients using the relation
On 2012/03/15 20:19:48, niemeyer wrote:
> Examples benefit from unique names so that one can tell what is being
referred
> to:

>      (...). For example, the ``mysql5`` service might provide
>      a relation named `db` with a ``mysql`` interface.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst#newcode24
source/drafts/relation-reference.rst:24: to use its relation id, not the
relation name.
On 2012/03/15 20:19:48, niemeyer wrote:
> This sentence has to be more specific. In many circumstances, it is
possible to
> specify a relation solely by its name, even in the scenario you
provide. Note
> that so far we don't have this setting, and we manage to do reasonably
well
> without it. Please finish this paragraph with an actual example that
requires
> such unique id, to give context to the whole proposal.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst#newcode27
source/drafts/relation-reference.rst:27: as described in a subsequent
section.
On 2012/03/15 20:19:48, niemeyer wrote:
> Also needs context. Why is this necessary? You've also mentioned
> $JUJU_RELATION_ID above. What's the difference between them?

> The paragraph also needs to be moved. It's saying how a relation id
may be
> obtained, without ever describing what it is, which is done by the
following
> paragraph.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst#newcode30
source/drafts/relation-reference.rst:30: be ``<interface
name>-<normalized internal relation
On 2012/03/15 20:19:48, niemeyer wrote:
> This should probably be <relation name> rather than <interface name>
and, it'd
> be good to avoid the dash between those entries, because relation
names are
> often named after the charm, and "mysql-42" looks like a charm
name-revision.
> Might also look nicer if indented.

> I suggest something like:

> """
> To ensure readability of this relation id, its format is specified to
be::

>      <relation name>:<normalized internal relation id>

> Normalization removes any padding zeros from the internal id. For
example, if
> the relation is associated with a relation named ``http`` and the
respective
> relation id is ``relation-0000000042``, then the relation id is
``http:42``.
> """

> Please put the bug in a references section at the end. It's not
relevant to the
> point being made here.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst#newcode42
source/drafts/relation-reference.rst:42: followed by a number.
On 2012/03/15 20:19:48, niemeyer wrote:
> This is unnecessary given the above suggestion of using a colon.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/diff/1/source/drafts/relation-reference.rst#newcode44
source/drafts/relation-reference.rst:44: Lastly, relation ids are never
visible outside of relation hooks or
On 2012/03/15 20:19:48, niemeyer wrote:
> This paragraph must be inverted. It's stating where the id isn't
visible, but
> the spec never describes where the setting *is* visible.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/5836049/