[Forces-protocol] Section 6 update

["Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert, All

 

Here you go...I have updated sections 6.1, 6.3, 6.6 (remove), 6.7 (same). I have directly used the text that Jamal sent out wherever applicable.

You can update sections 6.2, 6.4, 6.5 -> however, I would check with Weiming first as courtesy since he is working on these sections.

 

BTW, there were lots of things in the todo list I sent out...

 

Header Section - Jamal/Robert/Weiming?

Protocol LFB - Robert/Others?

FE LFB - Robert/Others?

CE LFB - ?

State Machine for Protocol - Ligang (taken)

 

Will you be working on any of these ??

 

Pls do let us know...I will start working on whatever hasn't been claimed by tomorrow morning my time.

 

Thanks

Hormuzd

 

________________________________

From: Robert Haas [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:39 AM
To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M
Cc: Ligang Dong; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Weiming Wang; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Applying changes to Section 6 (Protocol Messages)

 

Hormuzd,
Could you please pass the token on section 6 together with your latest version so I can start editing it ?
Thanks,
-Robert

Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:



Robert,

 

As I said, your note mostly looks...I have put some more comments below...

(It would help a lot if you start defining the FE, Protocol LFBs...)

________________________________

From: Robert Haas [mailto:[e-mail]] 


All: below is a rough list of changes and pending issues regarding section 6. Please review.

 6.1.1 Association: The CE could obtain the HBI with a Query-SGT-FEProtocolLFP-HeartbeatInterval. Given the new Assoc msg strcutrue, we have to remove HBI from the Assoc Setup msg.  [Agreed, this would be part of ProtocolLFB even if it is in this message] 

 6.1.2 How has the srcID=0 case been handled in the interop tests ? Is this really feasible ?  [Yes it worked fine during Interop] 

 6.2 Query: coarse FE info (inter/intra-FE topology, etc) goes into the FEProtocolLFB.  [Agreed it would be in some LFB, but not sure which LFB this would be part of...?] 

 6.4: Events: coarse CE and FE events go into CE/FEProtocolLFB. Note that for the sake of symmetry, we should introduce a CEProtocolLFB.  [Sure, why dont you start defining some of these objects...then we can discuss more in detail] 

 6.6 State Maintenance: FE Activate/Deactivate/Shutdown become settable attributes in the FEProtocolLFB.  [Yes, these messages will be part of Events or Config...we need to specify this] 

 6.7 HB remains as is.  [Agreed] 

In summary, we have the following operations defined for each message type ( I broke the table into 3 parts):
 [looks good!] 
OPERATION       APPLICABLE MESSAGE TYPES

                Assoc-Setup  Assoc-Setup-Resp Assoc-Teardown Heartbeat

no operations
defined


                Query  Query-Resp  Config  Config-Resp
SET, DEL, UPDATE                     x          x
GET               x         x
EV_S, EV_U                           x          x

(for event subscribe/unsubscribe)


                Packet-Redir

PAYLOAD            x


                Event-Notif  Event-Notif-Resp
EVENT              x                x

Note that for Query(-Resp), Packet-Redir, and Event-Notif(-Resp), we have each time only one operation. Looks a bit redundant. Ideas ?  [These are all very different, lets leave them as is, its not necessary to have multiple operations in all messages] 

Regards,
-Robert





-- 
Robert Haas
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
phone [phone]  fax [phone]  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol