[Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update
avri@psg.com Fri, 22 October 2004 17:45 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 NAA23958 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:45:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CL3h5-00032o-OJ for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:59:16 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CL3QV-0001m8-LI; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:42:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CL3Lr-0008H4-9t for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:37:19 -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 NAA23454 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: avri@psg.com
Received: from tla.crepundia.net ([194.71.127.149] helo=report.tla-group.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CL3Yf-0002uR-5Y for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:50:34 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (report.tla-group.com [194.71.127.149]) by report.tla-group.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i9MHCrep027294; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:12:54 +0200
In-Reply-To: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02FD8F7D@orsmsx408>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02FD8F7D@orsmsx408>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <FF33DAB0-2450-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:37:08 -0400
To: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8d89ee9312a95de8ee48d1c94511f1bb
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ram.gopal@nokia.com, "Wang, Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, hadi@znyx.com, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update
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: f60fbf3dbcaca652b6d10036f0630412
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Am I supposed to integrate Hormuzd's Section 6 update and then Robert will work on it? Or is Robert going take it and and then I will integrate the reviewed/integrated Section 6? I was planning to do the later, but if necessary will do the intermediate integration - i.e. will put the changes into XML. though I may not get to it for a few hours yet. a. On 22 okt 2004, at 12.37, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote: > No, I sent out the text directly. BTW, once Avri sends out an update I > can take care of making any more changes on section 6, if that is fine > with you. > > Any update on the protocol LFBs ? Let me know if I should start of any > of the other sections, Header, State Machine ?? > > Thanks All ! > Hormuzd > > > From: Robert Haas [mailto:rha@zurich.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 9:31 AM > To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M > Cc: Wang,Weiming; Ligang Dong; hadi@znyx.com; avri@psg.com; > ram.gopal@nokia.com; forces-protocol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Section 6 update > > Hormuzd, > Do you have the xml for the update you posted ? > Thanks, > -Robert > > Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote: > > Yes, having a new section for FE LFB, etc is a good idea. > Also, we can have a new section for the protocol State Machine (after > Protocol Messages) > > regards > Hormuzd > > > From: Robert Haas [mailto:rha@zurich.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:33 AM > To: Wang,Weiming > Cc: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; Ligang Dong; hadi@znyx.com; avri@psg.com; > ram.gopal@nokia.com; forces-protocol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Section 6 update > > Weiming. > I suggest we make a new section "FE LFB and FE Protocol LFB" just > before Section 5 "Common Header", instead of leaving this to section > 3.3.2. This will reflect the importance of those two LFBs in the > operation of the protocol. > > I'll post my text when ready, please do the same, and we'll merge. > > -Robert > > Wang,Weiming wrote: > > Robert, > > Don't worry too much about the FE LFB and Protocol LFB, I think it can > be fit it well in the sections. > > Actually I can do something for Protocol LFB and FE LFB if you think > possible. > > Regards, > Weiming > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Khosravi, Hormuzd M > To: Robert Haas > Cc: Ligang Dong ; hadi@znyx.com ; avri@psg.com ; ram.gopal@nokia.com ; > Weiming Wang ; forces-protocol@ietf.org > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 4:35 PM > Subject: Section 6 update > > > Hi Robert, All > > > > Here you go…I have updated sections 6.1, 6.3, 6.6 (remove), 6.7 > (same). I have directly used the text that Jamal sent out wherever > applicable. > > You can update sections 6.2, 6.4, 6.5 -> however, I would check with > Weiming first as courtesy since he is working on these sections. > > > > BTW, there were lots of things in the todo list I sent out… > > > > Header Section - Jamal/Robert/Weiming? > > Protocol LFB - Robert/Others? > > FE LFB - Robert/Others? > > CE LFB - ? > > State Machine for Protocol – Ligang (taken) > > > > Will you be working on any of these ?? > > > > Pls do let us know…I will start working on whatever hasn’t been > claimed by tomorrow morning my time. > > > > Thanks > > Hormuzd > > > > > From: Robert Haas [mailto:rha@zurich.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:39 AM > To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M > Cc: Ligang Dong; hadi@znyx.com; avri@psg.com; ram.gopal@nokia.com; > Weiming Wang; forces-protocol@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Applying changes to Section 6 (Protocol Messages) > > > > Hormuzd, > Could you please pass the token on section 6 together with your latest > version so I can start editing it ? > Thanks, > -Robert > > Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote: > > > Robert, > > > > As I said, your note mostly looks...I have put some more comments > below... > > (It would help a lot if you start defining the FE, Protocol LFBs...) > > > From: Robert Haas [mailto:rha@zurich.ibm.com] > > > All: below is a rough list of changes and pending issues regarding > section 6. Please review. > > 6.1.1 Association: The CE could obtain the HBI with a > Query-SGT-FEProtocolLFP-HeartbeatInterval. Given the new Assoc msg > strcutrue, we have to remove HBI from the Assoc Setup msg. [Agreed, > this would be part of ProtocolLFB even if it is in this message] > > 6.1.2 How has the srcID=0 case been handled in the interop tests ? Is > this really feasible ? [Yes it worked fine during Interop] > > 6.2 Query: coarse FE info (inter/intra-FE topology, etc) goes into > the FEProtocolLFB. [Agreed it would be in some LFB, but not sure > which LFB this would be part of...?] > > 6.4: Events: coarse CE and FE events go into CE/FEProtocolLFB. Note > that for the sake of symmetry, we should introduce a CEProtocolLFB. > [Sure, why dont you start defining some of these objects...then we can > discuss more in detail] > > 6.6 State Maintenance: FE Activate/Deactivate/Shutdown become > settable attributes in the FEProtocolLFB. [Yes, these messages will > be part of Events or Config...we need to specify this] > > 6.7 HB remains as is. [Agreed] > > In summary, we have the following operations defined for each message > type ( I broke the table into 3 parts): > [looks good!] > OPERATION APPLICABLE MESSAGE TYPES > > Assoc-Setup Assoc-Setup-Resp Assoc-Teardown Heartbeat > > no operations > defined > > > Query Query-Resp Config Config-Resp > SET, DEL, UPDATE x x > GET x x > EV_S, EV_U x x > > (for event subscribe/unsubscribe) > > > Packet-Redir > > PAYLOAD x > > > Event-Notif Event-Notif-Resp > EVENT x x > > Note that for Query(-Resp), Packet-Redir, and Event-Notif(-Resp), we > have each time only one operation. Looks a bit redundant. Ideas ? > [These are all very different, lets leave them as is, its not > necessary to have multiple operations in all messages] > > Regards, > -Robert > > > > -- > Robert Haas > IBM Zurich Research Laboratory > Säumerstrasse 4 > CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland > phone +41-1-724-8698 fax +41-1-724-8578 > http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha > > -- > Robert Haas > IBM Zurich Research Laboratory > Säumerstrasse 4 > CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland > phone +41-1-724-8698 fax +41-1-724-8578 > http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha > > -- > Robert Haas > IBM Zurich Research Laboratory > Säumerstrasse 4 > CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland > phone +41-1-724-8698 fax +41-1-724-8578 > http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha _______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
- [Forces-protocol] Section 6 update Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update Wang,Weiming
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update Robert Haas
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update Robert Haas
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update Wang,Weiming
- [Forces-protocol] RE: Section 6 update Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update Robert Haas
- [Forces-protocol] RE: Section 6 update Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update avri
- [Forces-protocol] RE: Section 6 update Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- [Forces-protocol] RE: Section 6 update Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- [Forces-protocol] Re: Section 6 update avri