Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?

So far you are the second person who has shown desire for this. I was
the other person; both of us are driven by implementation experience.
How about we just keep it as a note in the draft for now (for progress
reasons)?
Hopefully implementation experience will show the error of whats being
proposed right now, then we can come back and fix it?

cheers,
jamal

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 10:20, Weiming Wang wrote:
> Hi Jamal,
> 
> main hdr (eg type = config)
>      |
>      |
>      +--- T = LFBselect
>      |        |
>      |        +-- LFBCLASSID = target LFB class
>      |        |
>      |        |
>      |        +-- LFBInstance = target LFB instance
> 
> [Weiming] The more I'm thinking, the more I see the value to address multipul
> LFB instances here (I can now live with single LFB class). To speak of this, I
> have an aspire  to show my yesterday experience with my GRMP test platform
> (sorry I have to mention it). As you know, GRMP  does not support multipul LFB
> instance addressing.  Yesterday, we had to prepare a show of the platform to
> guests from our sponsors. Before the show, we spent near one hour to operate on
> the menu to construct a scenario, in which there were 5 output port, 5
> associated schedulers (LFBs), and several other LFBs that have many instances.
> unfortunately, we faced a problem with one of the machine. Then we had to do it
> again.  At that time, I had a VERY VERY strong desire that batch configuration
> based on multipul LFB isntance addressing can be used.
> 
> I can see very simple scheme to include multipul instances here (by ranging, or
> by enum, or by both). Definitely, I believe this will greatly improve our
> protocol.
> 
> I sincerely hope this be considered seriously by gentlemen.
> 
> Best regards,
> Weiming
> 
>      |        |
>      |        |
>      |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
>      |        |   |
>      |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
>      |        |        // under discussion
>      |        |
>      |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
>      |        |   |
>      |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
>      |        |        // under discussion
>      |        |
>      |        +-- T = operation { ADD, DEL, GET, etc}
>      |        |   |
>      |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
>      |        |        // under discussion
>      |        |
> 
> In other words: Very similar to the way we have it already except
> the naming has changed and we can target multiple
> operations and multiple paths in an LFB instance
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
> >
> > Welcome back Weiming. I have updated the text with the query/response.
> > The only outstanding issue is 6.7. Please weigh in.
> > I think we are ready top start making updates.
> >
> > cheers,
> > jamal
> >
> 
> 

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