[Forces-protocol] querry message (path vs attribute)
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Sat, 23 October 2004 19:15 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 PAA16742 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:15:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLRZi-0002MM-MD for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:29:15 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLRLi-0002c1-Bo; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:14:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLRJX-0001AF-3I for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:12:31 -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 PAA16434 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:12:29 -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 1CLRWc-0002Jw-Et for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:26:03 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([208.2.156.2]) by lotus.znyx.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004102312145921:39197 ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:14:59 -0700
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
To: Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <417AA8B6.1040601@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <005b01c4b907$242b1790$020aa8c0@wwm1> <417AA8B6.1040601@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Message-Id: <1098558745.1097.42.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:12:26 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/23/2004 12:15:00 PM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/23/2004 12:15:01 PM, Serialize complete at 10/23/2004 12:15:01 PM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0cff8c3ec906d056784362c06f5f88c1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, avri@psg.com, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] querry message (path vs attribute)
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: 202a3ece0492a8c7e7c8672d5214398f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think we need to add a definition for attribute. As far as iam concerned there is no such thing as a "attribute ID". What you specify is a path similar to an OID. Whether that path happens to be on an attribute, a table, an entry is not important because that wuill be the lement you are pointing to. so lets remove this from the query section ----- Editorial Note: There is a debate on whether we should use a 'Path' or simply an 'Attribute ID' or a 'Table ID' here at the protocol layer. A Path is used for data indexing for a table, while an 'Attribute ID' or a 'Table ID' only specify which attribute or table to use, leaving table index to be included in followed data. ---- cheers, jamal On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 14:53, Robert Haas wrote: > All, > Attached is the text updated according to Weiming's comments. > > Regards, > -Robert > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > We can remove sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, and replace them with a single > section that provides an overview of what these "special LFBs": > > New section 3.3.2: > > Whereas four key PL messages have a specific type assigned (Association > Setup, Response, and Teardown, as well as Heartbeat) mostly for > simplicity and monitoring reasons, all other PL messages follow the LFB > structure as this provides more flexibility for future enhancements. In > addition, this shows how the ForCES protocol itself can be controlled by > the very same type of structures (LFBs) as it uses to control functions > such as IP forwarding, filtering, etc. > > To achieve this, the following LFBs are used: FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, > and CE LFB. These LFBs are detailed in Section XXX. An short description > is provided here: > > The FE Protocol LFB is a logical entity in each FE that is used to > control the ForCES protocol. The CE operates on this LFB to subscribe or > unsubscribe to Heartbeat messages, define the Heartbeat interval, or > discover which ForCES protocol version and which TMLs the FE supports. > The FE Protocol LFB also contains the various ForCES ID to be used: > unicast IDs and table of the PL multicast IDs the FE must be listening to. > [TBD: I don't think we need a CE Protocol LFB] > > The FE LFB (referred to as "FE attributes" in the model draft) should > not be confused with the FE Protocol Object. The FE LFB is a logical > entity in each FE and contains attributes relative to the FE itself, and > not to the operation of the ForCES protocol between the CE and the FE. > Such attributes can be FEState (refer to model draft), vendor, etc. The > FE LFB contains in particular an table that maps a virtual LFB Instance > ID to one or more Instance IDs of LFBs in the FE. > > The CE LFB is the counterpart of the FE LFB. The CE LFB is a logical > entity in each CE and contains attributes relative to the CE itself, and > not to the operation of the ForCES protocol between the CE and the FE. > This LFB can be used to convey event notifications from a CE to FEs. > Some events may be sent by the CE without prior subscription by the FEs. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The following section should be inserted just before the "Protocol > Messages" section. It provides the detail (in english, not xml) of the > LFBs. > > Chapter X: FE, CE, and Protocol LFBs. > > The FE LFB, CE LFB, and FE Protocol LFB are used to control the > operation of the ForCES protocol and interact with FEs and CEs. > Although these LFBs have the same form and interface as other LFBs, they > are special in many respects: they have fixed well-known LFB Class and > Instance IDs. They are statically defined (no dynamic instantiation > allowed) and their status cannot be changed by the protocol: any > operation to change the state of such LFBs (for instance, in order to > disable the LFB) must result in an error. Moreover, these LFBs must > exist before the first ForCES message can be sent or received. All > attributes in these LFBs must have pre-defined default values. Finally, > these LFBs do not have input nor output ports and do not integrate into > the intra-FE LFB topology. > > Section X.1 FE Protocol LFB > > The FE Protocol LFB is a logical entity in each FE that is used to > control the ForCES protocol. The FE Protocol LFB Class ID is assigned > the value 0x1. The FE LFB Instance ID is assigned the value 0x1. There > must always be one and only one instance of the FE Protocol LFB in an > FE. The values of the attributes in the FE Protocol LFB have pre-defined > default values that are specified here. Unless explicit changes are made > to these values using Config messages from the CE, these default values > MUST be used for the operation of the protocol. > > The FE Protocol Object consists of the following elements: > > FE Protocol events that can be subscribed/unsubscribed: > FE heartbeat > FE TML events (TBD) > FE Protocol capabilities (read-only): > Supported ForCES protocol version(s) by the FE > Supported ForCES FE model(s) by the FE > Some TML capability description(s) > FE Protocol attributes (can be read and set): > Current version of the ForCES protocol > Current version of the FE model > FE unicast ID > FE multicast ID(s) (list) > Association Expiry Timer > Heartbeat Interval > Primary CE > FE failover and restart policy > CE failover and restart policy [XXX: what is the diff with FE failover ?] > > [TBD: define default values for each attribute if applicable] > > Section X.2 > > The FE LFB is a logical entity in each FE and contains attributes > relative to the FE itself, and not to the operation of the ForCES > protocol. The FE LFB Class ID is assigned the value 0x2. The FE LFB > Instance ID is assigned the value 0x1. There must always be one and only > one instance of the FE LFB in an FE. > > The FE LFB consists of the following elements: > FE Events: > FEAllEvents (subscribing to this corresponds to subscribing to all > events below) > FEStatusChange (events that signal FE Up/Down/Active/Inactive/Failover) > FE DoS alert > FE capability change > FE attributes: > FEStatusChange (to set the FE in Active, Inactive, or Shutdown mode > [Note: this replaces the State Maintenance messages]) > MIID table (a list of virtual LFB Instance IDs that map to a list of > Instance IDs of LFBs in that FE [Refer to Zsolt's note]) > FE Behavior Exp. Timer > HA Mode > FE DoS protection policy > [the attributes below were previously under Query message] > Inter-FE topology > Intra-FE topology > > > Section X.3 > > The CE LFB is a logical entity in each CE and contains attributes > relative to the CE itself, and not to the operation of the ForCES protocol. > > The CE LFB consists of the following elements: > CE Events: > CEAllEvents (subscribing to this corresponds to subscribing to all > events below) [Do we want to allow an FE to explicitely subscribe to CE > events ?] > CEStatusChange (events that signal CE > Up/Down/Active/Inactive/Failover) [Such events do not necessarily need > to be subscribed to, they can fire even without subscription and inform > the FE] > > [TBD: what else do we need in the CE LFB ?] _______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
- RE: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- RE: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Header Section avri
- RE: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Header Section avri
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Wang,Weiming
- [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE LFB… Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Weiming Wang
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… avri
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] querry message (path vs attribu… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Header Section Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Robert Haas
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB,CE … Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] 01-5 avri
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback section 6.1. Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.2 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback on section 6.3 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback on section 6.5 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Feedback on rest of section 6 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs att… Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFB, FE LFB, CE… Wang,Weiming
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback on section 6.5 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback on section 6.5 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 avri
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 avri
- [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5 Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs… Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] 01-7 avri
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 avri
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Wang,Weiming
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4 Joel M. Halpern
- [Forces-protocol] Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2 Jamal Hadi Salim