Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Sat, 30 October 2004 00:03 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 UAA27617 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:03:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CNgwc-00064g-0u for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:18:11 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CNgb7-0008V3-Ss; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:55:57 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CNgNP-0007VS-NZ for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:41:48 -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 TAA26506 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:41:45 -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 1CNgbn-0005j6-Hy for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:56:39 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([208.2.156.2]) by lotus.znyx.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004102916453653:2300 ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:45:36 -0700
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
To: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E031688E1@orsmsx408>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E031688E1@orsmsx408>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Message-Id: <1099093301.1039.4.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:41:41 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/29/2004 04:45:37 PM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/29/2004 04:45:40 PM, Serialize complete at 10/29/2004 04:45:40 PM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ram.gopal@nokia.com, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, avri@psg.com, Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
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: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 16:33, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote: > Ok, I see where the confusion is, the bitwise message representation is > in the correct format but the other format which you have drawn below is > not. This is a copy/paste error, I'll send out a fix to Avri. > ok, yes i see it to now ;-> I guess you were on one piece and i was on the other ;-> Theres still that other cruft still there: + LFB Instance ID and LFB Class ID should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are going. + Generaly, 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, repeat of above: + 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" ??? Robert said something in the concal on this, cant remember. + 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
- [Forces-protocol] RE: Resend: Feedback: Section 6… Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- [Forces-protocol] RE: Resend: Feedback: Section 6… Jamal Hadi Salim
- [Forces-protocol] RE: Resend: Feedback: Section 6… Khosravi, Hormuzd M
- Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: Resend: Feedback: Secti… Jamal Hadi Salim