[Forces-protocol] RE: Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2

"Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com> Fri, 29 October 2004 17:56 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 NAA19569 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CNbDe-0004e2-Kz for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:11:22 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CNavH-0001Ar-QB; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:52:23 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CNaqy-0004hp-3d for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:47:56 -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 NAA19031 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:47:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fmr05.intel.com ([134.134.136.6] helo=hermes.jf.intel.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CNb5F-0004Ta-Jh for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:02:44 -0400
Received: from talaria.jf.intel.com (talaria.jf.intel.com [10.7.209.7]) by hermes.jf.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-outer.mc,v 1.15 2004/01/30 18:16:28 root Exp $) with ESMTP id i9THpKdW007529; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:51:20 GMT
Received: from orsmsxvs041.jf.intel.com (orsmsxvs041.jf.intel.com [192.168.65.54]) by talaria.jf.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-inner.mc,v 1.11 2004/07/29 22:51:53 root Exp $) with SMTP id i9THe4Od030306; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:40:27 GMT
Received: from orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.56]) by orsmsxvs041.jf.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.2.35) with SMTP id M2004102910471408656 ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:47:14 -0700
Received: from orsmsx408.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.52]) by orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:47:14 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:47:13 -0700
Message-ID: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E03128AB1@orsmsx408>
Thread-Topic: Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2
Thread-Index: AcS9t/RrKU+fQSMUTMiUJer79UnxPwAJqfww
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>
To: <hadi@znyx.com>, <avri@psg.com>, "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Oct 2004 17:47:14.0559 (UTC) FILETIME=[5344C8F0:01C4BDDF]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ram.gopal@nokia.com, Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org
Subject: [Forces-protocol] RE: Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jamal,

I thought we discussed this on the call and the resolution was to change
the Operation name from SHOW to ADVERTISE. I am not sure why you are
bringing this up again, pls look at the grammar once...

      PL level PDU :=   MAINHDR<LFBselect>+
      LFBselect    :=   LFBCLASSID LFBInstance <OPER>+
      OPER         :=   <OPERATION [<path-data>]*>+


I think this fits quite well into it, and the Operation name Advertise
is more general and can be reused as opposed to what your suggestions
are.

Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi@znyx.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 6:05 AM
To: avri@psg.com
Cc: Robert Haas; forces-protocol@ietf.org; Ligang Dong;
ram.gopal@nokia.com; Khosravi, Hormuzd M; Weiming Wang
Subject: Resend: Feedback: Section 6.2


Folks,

I am gonna start queueing (inot a queue that holds only one message)
issues i think are unresolved (we either didnt get to completion on call
or havent discussed them to satisfaction to close them).

- Section 6.2.1

             +--- T = Operation = SHOW
                      |
                      +-- FE NAME


Is it an operation at all given its position in the hierachy?
PENAME may have been a better name.

I didnt explain this well on the call.
Where operation is showing up is the wrong spot for the grammar which
says operation comes after LFBSelection.
It is therefore not an operation. Hence the suggestion to call it
PENAME.

In the diagram: 
+ LFB Instance ID  and LFB Class ID 
should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are
going.
+ 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: 
+ 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" ???

+ 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