Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?

Hi Jamal,

main hdr (eg type = config)
     |
     |
     +--- T = LFBselect
     |        |
     |        +-- LFBCLASSID = target LFB class
     |        |
     |        |
     |        +-- LFBInstance = target LFB instance

[Weiming] The more I'm thinking, the more I see the value to address multipul
LFB instances here (I can now live with single LFB class). To speak of this, I
have an aspire  to show my yesterday experience with my GRMP test platform
(sorry I have to mention it). As you know, GRMP  does not support multipul LFB
instance addressing.  Yesterday, we had to prepare a show of the platform to
guests from our sponsors. Before the show, we spent near one hour to operate on
the menu to construct a scenario, in which there were 5 output port, 5
associated schedulers (LFBs), and several other LFBs that have many instances.
unfortunately, we faced a problem with one of the machine. Then we had to do it
again.  At that time, I had a VERY VERY strong desire that batch configuration
based on multipul LFB isntance addressing can be used.

I can see very simple scheme to include multipul instances here (by ranging, or
by enum, or by both). Definitely, I believe this will greatly improve our
protocol.

I sincerely hope this be considered seriously by gentlemen.

Best regards,
Weiming

     |        |
     |        |
     |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
     |        |   |
     |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
     |        |        // under discussion
     |        |
     |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
     |        |   |
     |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
     |        |        // under discussion
     |        |
     |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
     |        |   |
     |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
     |        |        // under discussion
     |        |

In other words: Very similar to the way we have it already except
the naming has changed and we can target multiple
operations and multiple paths in an LFB instance
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
>
> Welcome back Weiming. I have updated the text with the query/response.
> The only outstanding issue is 6.7. Please weigh in.
> I think we are ready top start making updates.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>

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