Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: draft-ietf-forces-protocol-01.txt

[[e-mail]]

On 25 okt 2004, at 07.51, Robert Haas wrote:

> Avri,
> Looks good. I have a few corrections, although not essential for now, 
> unless you can't sleep after all the excitment on the list ...

Too late.  I went to sleep after submitting at 4:30 AM.  Not that I 
could have changed anything after submitting.  I submitted before going 
to sleep because I did not want to risk missing the deadline and was 
not sure that i would be able to do any useful editing after 2-3 sleep 
anyway.

so these edits will go in -02

http://psg.com/~avri/forces/draft/draft-ietf-forces-protocol-02-1.txt

>
> - In the Config Response Msg section, the draft says
>
>   Type (16 bits):
>       The operations are same as those defined for Config messages.
>
> whereas the other messages (Query, Event Notif) have now explicitely 
> defined a "*-Response" operation type.  The table should therefore now 
> look like:
>
>   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+
>   |     Operation     | Query | Query-Resp | Config | Config-Resp |
>   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+
>   |        Set        |       |            |    X   |             |
>         Set-Response                                       X
>   |                   |       |            |        |             |
>   |       Delete      |       |            |    X   |             |
>       Delete-Response                                      X
>   |                   |       |            |        |             |
>   |       Update      |       |            |    X   |            |
>       Update-Response                                      X   |       
>             |       |            |        |             |
>   |        Get        |   X   |            |        |             |
>        Get-Response                  X   |                   |       | 
>            |        |             |
>   |  Event subscribe  |       |            |    X   |             |
>   |  Ev.Sub.-Response |       |            |        |      X      |
>   |                   |       |            |        |             |
>   | Event unsubscribe |       |            |    X   |             |
>   | Ev.Unsub.-Response|       |            |        |      X      |
>   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+
>

done

>
>     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
>     | Operation | Packet-Redir | Event-Notif | Event-Notif-Resp |
>     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
>     |  Payload  |       X      |             |                  |
>     |           |              |             |                  |
>     |   Report  |              |      X      |                  |
>     |Report-Resp|              |             |         X        |
>     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
> Note that Operation "Event" was changed to "Report"
>

done

>
> And the text I quoted above in the Config-Resp section 6.3.2 should be 
> changed accordingly to :
>
>   Type (16 bits):
>       The operations include, ADD-Resp, DEL-Resp, UPDATE/REPLACE-Resp, 
> DEL ALL-Resp, EVENT
>       SUBSCRIBE-Resp, EVENT UNSUBSCRIBE-Resp, PACKET SUBSCRIBE, 
> CANCEL-Resp.

done

>
> I would drop in 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 the operation types PACKET *SUBSCRIBE.


I did not understand what you wanted here.

i notice you include PACKET SUBSCRIBE in your change, but not 
UNSUBSCIBE.

While 6.3.1 current has both.  I am not sure what change you are 
suggesting.

I have left them alone for the moment.

> Note that all the messages above don't appear in the summary table, 
> but maybe we should not overload the table with all of them.

don't mind adding them.  what do folks think?
i do need to find a way to adjust the table cell sizes so that it looks 
a little better.

speaking of aesthetics, as the draft gets closer to being finished.  i 
will work on getting pictures to stay on a single page.  not worth the 
effort before then.

that is assuming i stay in the (co) editor role.  otherwise someone 
else can do it.

>
> -  add an Editorial's note after the text below (search for MIID):
>
>      *  MIID table: a list of virtual LFB Instance IDs that map to a
>         list of Instance IDs of LFBs in that FE
>
> Editoral's note: it remains to be decided whether such an MIID table 
> should be  used.

done.

I should have noticed this was still an open issue.  Actually i did 
notice, i just forgot to note it in the draft.

>
> - search and correct typo "GET_RESPOSE"
>

found one instance. fixed.

> - add a newline between Inter-FE topology and Intra-FE topology (sec 
> 6.1.2):
>
>         Note:  The attributes below were previously under Query
>                message.
>      *  Inter-FE topology Intra-FE topology
>

done

>
> - you should appear as "Editor", not "co-editor".

I have never been sure of that.  and therefore listed myself as 
co-editor, since i was pretty sure i was functioning as at least that.

> At least that's my understanding. Also, the ETRI name appears on the 
> first page. I thought you said you didn't want that ? I personally 
> don't care.

i had removed it, but in the exercise to put all the names in the 
header, i reinserted and forgot to remove it. removed it now.

>
> - I like the name "Core ForCES LFBs"

yeah, me too.

>
> Thanks,

thank you.

a.

ps.  i put repositories for -01 on the web site

psg.com/~avri/forces/draft/draft-ietf-forces-protocol-01.[txt, zip, 
tar, tsg]


_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol