[Forces-protocol] RE: Section 6 update
"Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com> Fri, 22 October 2004 17:46 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 NAA24036 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:46:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CL3hb-00033Y-Cj for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:59:47 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CL3Qt-0001tB-PD; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:42:31 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CL3N6-0008Kt-BC for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:38:36 -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 NAA23524 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:38:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fmr12.intel.com ([134.134.136.15] helo=orsfmr001.jf.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CL3Zu-0002v3-VL for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:51:51 -0400
Received: from petasus.jf.intel.com (petasus.jf.intel.com [10.7.209.6]) by orsfmr001.jf.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-outer.mc,v 1.15 2004/01/30 18:16:28 root Exp $) with ESMTP id i9MHcZ06006768; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:38:35 GMT
Received: from orsmsxvs041.jf.intel.com (orsmsxvs041.jf.intel.com [192.168.65.54]) by petasus.jf.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-inner.mc,v 1.11 2004/07/29 22:51:53 root Exp $) with SMTP id i9MHfOmh012259; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:41:34 GMT
Received: from orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.60]) by orsmsxvs041.jf.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.2.35) with SMTP id M2004102210375417737 ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:37:54 -0700
Received: from orsmsx408.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.52]) by orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:37:53 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:37:52 -0700
Message-ID: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02FD9153@orsmsx408>
Thread-Topic: Section 6 update
Thread-Index: AcS4GYOzVwGfXU4lSPq2AyjIZy+LwQAQovpw
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>
To: Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2004 17:37:53.0808 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC24B900:01C4B85D]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 24d000849df6f171c5ec1cca2ea21b82
Cc: ram.gopal@nokia.com, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, avri@psg.com, hadi@znyx.com, Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0695607498=="
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: d11a451997816a91a305dcb5ab1b85dd
Robert, Thanks for your comments below. I am mostly fine with them, will incorporate the changes in the text. BTW, any status update from you ? Should I assume you are not working on Section 6 at the moment ? Pls see a few of my comments/clarifications below... regards Hormuzd ________________________________ From: Robert Haas [mailto:rha@zurich.ibm.com] I think we should now make our terminology consistent and use "FE LFB" and "FE Protocol LFB" instead of Object or Managed Object. I know it will make Weiming unhappy, but I find it less confusing. The reason is that we treat regular LFBs and the FE Object and FE Protocol Object in the same manner in the protocol ("Everything is an LFB"). [HK] I am fine with whatever terminology you guys decide, as long as it is consistent in the draft. LFB is definitely cleaner, so I agree. 6.1.1 Association Setup Message To me, FE Name is an attribute of the FE Protocol Object/LFB (not the FE Object/LFB) that can be advertised by the FE. Let's define a new "SHOW" operation for that purpose. [Do we need to have an Operation ? If yes then SHOW is fine by me] The message would therefore look like: main hdr (eg type = Association setup) | | +--- T = LFBselect | +-- LFBCLASSID = FE object | | +-- LFBInstance = 0x1 | | +-- T = operation SHOW | +-- FE NAME (path target) What do you think ? A better name than "SHOW" ? [Fine by me if we need an Operation] 6.3 Configuration Messages 6.3.1 Config Message Event Type (16 bits): For SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE Events Type TLVs, an Event Type field will define the Events of interest. Examples of Event Type include, All Events, FE Events, LFB Events, Packets, Packet Mirroring. I am not comfortable with these Event Type flags that appear for every operation (ADD, GET, DEL, etc) but are only used for EV_S and EV_U. I propose to do this differently: [Ok, I'll make this change] main hdr (eg type = config) | | +--- T = LFBselect | | | +-- LFBCLASSID = target LFB class | | | | | +-- LFBInstance = target LFB instance | | | | | +-- T = operation = EV_S | | | | | +-- // one or more path targets (i.e., events to subscribe) | | // under discussion And define the following attributes in their respective LFB/Objects: - in each specific LFB (including the FE Object), an attribute for each event it can fire, and possibly an attribute for "AllLFBEvents" that can be subscribed to and corresponds to subscribing to all events of that LFB (model team should look at this). I don't know what a "Packets", or "Packet Mirroring" event corresponds to. If this is a redirected packet, then we have already a special message type for it. [HK] We need some way to Subscribe, Unsubscribe for Packets...so I decided to put it here...however based on your comment I think it would be cleaner to define 2 more operations PACKET SUBSCRIBE, PACKET UNSUBSCRIBE...let me know what you think ? 6.3.2 Config Response Message But you have multiple overall results in the same config message. This should be fixed. [The overall results are per operation, I think I will change the terminology]
_______________________________________________ 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