[Forces-protocol] RE: Feedback on section 6.3

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