[Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.2

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Sat, 23 October 2004 20:24 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 QAA20538 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLSeS-0003XA-B6 for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:38:13 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLSQT-00074W-9K; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:23:45 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLSPV-0006sI-6O for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:22:45 -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 QAA20483 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:22:42 -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 1CLSca-0003Vw-Gq for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:36:17 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([208.2.156.2]) by lotus.znyx.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004102313251302:39230 ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:25:13 -0700
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
To: avri@psg.com
In-Reply-To: <C4CB0B3C-251F-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <C4CB0B3C-251F-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Message-Id: <1098562959.1096.80.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: 23 Oct 2004 16:22:39 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/23/2004 01:25:13 PM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/23/2004 01:25:14 PM, Serialize complete at 10/23/2004 01:25:14 PM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
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] 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: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- Section 6.2.1

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


What is the point of having this one operation called SHOW just
for this? Is it an operation at all given its position in the hierachy?
PENAME may have been a better name.

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