[Forces-protocol] RE: Feedback on section 6.3

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Sat, 23 October 2004 22:09 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 SAA26764 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:09:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLUHu-0005En-4z for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:23:02 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLU1n-00006Z-81; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:06:23 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLTzJ-0007iP-SG for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:03:50 -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 SAA26079 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:03:46 -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 1CLUCQ-00059W-0l for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:17:23 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([208.2.156.2]) by lotus.znyx.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004102315061707:39285 ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:06:17 -0700
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
To: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579214@orsmsx408>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579214@orsmsx408>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Message-Id: <1098569023.1255.127.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: 23 Oct 2004 18:03:44 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/23/2004 03:06:17 PM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/23/2004 03:06:19 PM, Serialize complete at 10/23/2004 03:06:19 PM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
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>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] RE: Feedback on section 6.3
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: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Avri,
Should probably have said it in my emails. These feedbacks on section 6
are not meant as changes to be made; rather as discussion points
hopefully to be resolved before release of draft.

cheers,
jamal

On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 17:21, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:
> Jamal,
> 
> I'll respond to your comments by end of today (within next 12 hrs)
> Avri, pls don't make any changes before that,
> 
> Thanks
> Hormuzd
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi@znyx.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:37 PM
> To: avri@psg.com
> Cc: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; ram.gopal@nokia.com; Ligang Dong;
> forces-protocol@ietf.org; Weiming Wang; Robert Haas
> Subject: Feedback on section 6.3
> 
> 
> section 6.3
> 
> And in general i hope those are seen as sample layouts of the message;
> i.e hopefully, nobody sees that layout as the way they must build the
> message with an ADD and a DEL etc.
> 
> - 6.3.1  Config Message
> 
> + "Config data"   should be "Config data and path"
> 
> + Type is bad to describe operations. That should be operations
> 
> + UPDATE/REPLACE, DEL ALL are really flag extensions which will become
> clear once we have path-data noise cleared. Suggest you remove.
> 
> + What is PACKET SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE?
> 
> - 6.3.2  Config Response Message
> 
> Why do we have " Operation Result "
> As far as i can see it is sufficient to look at the Main header type,
> a operation, path and its associated data.
> Unless this is meant to be a less verbose result?
> 
> + BTW, what is the point of mentioning "single or Array LFB
>        specific result entries" or result might be TLV. Just say the 
> presentation of the data is stuill under discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> cheers,
> jamal
> 


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