Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE LFB (draft sections) to review.

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Sun, 24 October 2004 12:07 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 IAA22751 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:07:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLhNA-0004ro-58 for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:21:20 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLh68-0002Hd-St; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:03:44 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLgzU-0001Op-Km for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:56:52 -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 HAA22020 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:56:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLhCg-0004gL-SP for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:10:33 -0400
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 99432.341813895; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:16:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000087192@mail.gsu.cn>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:52:22 +0800
Message-ID: <124b01c4b9c0$3698cee0$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com>, <avri@psg.com>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <C4CB0B3C-251F-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417AADED.9080605@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE LFB (draft sections) to review.
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:54:27 +0800
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Cc: ram.gopal@nokia.com, "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, hadi@znyx.com, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c

Robert,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com>

> @@ -33,15 +34,18 @@
>     Current version of the ForCES protocol
>     Current version of the FE model
> -   FE unicast ID(s) (list)
> +  FE unicast ID
>     FE multicast ID(s) (list)
>     Association Expiry Timer
>     Heartbeat Interval
>     Primary CE
>     FE failover and restart policy
> +  CE failover and restart policy [XXX: what is the diff with FE failover ?]
[Weiming] I agree your idea that these two may be merged. Say it as 'CE and FE
failover policy' ?

> +
> +[TBD: define default values for each attribute if applicable]
>
>  Section X.2
>
> @@ -53,11 +57,12 @@
>     FEStatusChange (events that signal FE Up/Down/Active/Inactive/Failover)
>     FE DoS alert
>     FE capability change
>   FE attributes:
> -   FEStatusChange (to set the FE in Active, Inactive, or Shutdown mode
> [Note: this replies the State Maintenance messages])
> +  FEStatusChange (to set the FE in Active, Inactive, or Shutdown mode
> [Note: this replaces the State Maintenance messages])
>     MIID table (a list of virtual LFB Instance IDs that map to a list of
> Instance IDs of LFBs in that FE [Refer to Zsolt's note])
>     FE Behavior Exp. Timer
>     HA Mode
> +  FE DoS protection policy
>     [the attributes below were previously under Query message]
[Weiming] this editorial note is not needed anymore, fore I'v already removed
the following items.

>     Inter-FE topology
>     Intra-FE topology
> @@ -67,8 +72,8 @@
>
>  The CE LFB is a logical entity in each CE and contains attributes
> relative to the CE itself, and not to the operation of the ForCES protocol.
>
> - The FE LFB consists of the following elements:
> +The CE LFB consists of the following elements:
>   CE Events:
>     CEAllEvents (subscribing to this corresponds to subscribing to all
> events below) [Do we want to allow an FE to explicitely subscribe to CE
> events ?]
>     CEStatusChange (events that signal CE
> Up/Down/Active/Inactive/Failover)  [Such events do not necessarily need
> to be subscribed to, they can fire even without subscription and inform
> the FE]



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