Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Sun, 24 October 2004 12:29 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 IAA23788 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLhiN-0005Ad-GT for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:43:15 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLhSE-0004rr-Af; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:26:34 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLhNQ-0004JQ-CJ for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:21:36 -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 IAA23440 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:21:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLhaa-00053T-4b for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:35:17 -0400
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 99432.341813895; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:41:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000087214@mail.gsu.cn>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:17:08 +0800
Message-ID: <130801c4b9c3$ac205d60$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: <hadi@znyx.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><1098562959.1096.80.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1098564534.1098.106.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:19:12 +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: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.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: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4

Jamal,

Thank you for scrutinizing the sections one by one.

Cheers,
Weiming
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4


>
> "The ForCES query and query response messages are used for one ForCES
>    element (CE or FE) to query other ForCES element(s) for various kinds
>    of information. "
>
> Isnt everything an LFB? Why not say that its for querying LFBs?
[Weimig]it's just a top level description I think we need. i don't think it
conflict with the ideas of LFBs. Maybe we can add one more sentense as "The
information of a ForCES element all reside in LFBs in the element, therefore,
query message will actually query the LFBs for kinds of information." Does it
work?

>
> - 6.4.1  Query Message
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |    Type = GET                 |               Length          |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |                        Path(or Attribute ID?)                 |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |                            Query Data                         |
>                                                               .
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
> Should really be:
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |    Type = GET                 |               Length          |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |                        Path to queried data                   |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[Weiming] This may be better described in the followed description. So, Avri,
could you please add the 'Path to queried data' after the Path description, just
before the [[Under discussion and TBD]

Again, I think it may be better to leave the discussion topic on attribute
ID/table ID here.

>
> - 6.4.2  Query Response Message
>
> I think the deviation from the norm in laying out the response
> will make it more programming work.
> Looking at main header one should be able to tell how to parse the
> contents and what they mean.
>
> cheers,
> jamal



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