IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Forces-protocol] Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Fri, 29 October 2004 13:23 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27750 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:23:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CNWww-0006qM-08 for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:37:51 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CNWhH-0006px-O2; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:21:39 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CNWRQ-00073l-NC for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:05:16 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26743 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:05:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from znx208-2-156-007.znyx.com ([208.2.156.7] helo=lotus.znyx.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CNWfi-0006X7-Ld for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:20:02 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([208.2.156.2]) by lotus.znyx.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004102906090405:673 ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:09:04 -0700
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
To: avri@psg.com
In-Reply-To: <1098562959.1096.80.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <C4CB0B3C-251F-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <1098562959.1096.80.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Message-Id: <1099055108.1028.125.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:05:09 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/29/2004 06:09:04 AM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/29/2004 06:09:09 AM, Serialize complete at 10/29/2004 06:09:09 AM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: hadi@znyx.com
List-Id: forces-protocol <forces-protocol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/forces-protocol>
List-Post: <mailto:forces-protocol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Folks,

I am gonna start queueing (inot a queue that holds only one message)
issues i think are unresolved (we either didnt get to completion on call
or havent discussed them to satisfaction to close them).

- Section 6.2.1

             +--- T = Operation = SHOW
                      |
                      +-- FE NAME


Is it an operation at all given its position in the hierachy?
PENAME may have been a better name.

I didnt explain this well on the call.
Where operation is showing up is the wrong spot for the grammar which
says operation comes after LFBSelection.
It is therefore not an operation. Hence the suggestion to call it
PENAME.

In the diagram: 
+ LFB Instance ID  and LFB Class ID 
should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are
going.
+ Type = operation, using the word "type" is confusing since it is also
used in the main header. I dont think we can avoid using the word type
in TLVs; my suggestion is we consider changing the main header type to 
"command". Thoughts? It is a command after all.
+ comment on SHOW applies here as well

+ "HBI will be exchanged with the CE using this LFB" ???

-6.2.2  Association Setup Response Message

In the diagram: 
+ LFB Instance ID  and LFB Class ID 
should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are
going.
+         
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        Type = operation Show  |               Length          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
~                   FE Object LFB (optional)                    ~
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

What is that?

+ "HBI will be exchanged with the CE using this LFB" ???

+ Type = T.reason  ?

This brings up that we need the following speacial TLVs.

FORCES_REASON, FORCES_RESULT, FORCES_NAME.

cheers,
jamal


_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
Forces-protocol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email