[Forces-protocol] RE: Summary of path
"Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com> Mon, 01 November 2004 19:23 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 OAA19858 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:23:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1COi14-0000Rx-Dt for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:38:58 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COhZe-0003em-VS; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:10:38 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1COhKB-0003aY-Jz for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:54:39 -0500
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 NAA17545 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:54:36 -0500 (EST)
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 1COhZ5-0008ER-AC for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:10:06 -0500
Received: from petasus.jf.intel.com (petasus.jf.intel.com [10.7.209.6]) 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 iA1Ivq5t000411; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:57:52 GMT
Received: from orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com (orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com [192.168.65.206]) by petasus.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 iA1Iv5bC004161; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:57:16 GMT
Received: from orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.60]) by orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.2.35) with SMTP id M2004110110532508260 ; Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:53:25 -0800
Received: from orsmsx408.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.52]) by orsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:53:25 -0800
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: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:53:23 -0800
Message-ID: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E031B9F43@orsmsx408>
Thread-Topic: Summary of path
Thread-Index: AcS/Tuy8WUv5wDrdR8Sg/c4VmVX1YAA9QgAQ
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>
To: Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, avri@psg.com, forces-protocol@ietf.org, hadi@znyx.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2004 18:53:25.0866 (UTC) FILETIME=[119764A0:01C4C044]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 612a16ba5c5f570bfc42b3ac5606ac53
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ram.gopal@nokia.com, "Steven Blake (petri-meat)" <slblake@petri-meat.com>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn, "Putzolu, David" <david.putzolu@intel.com>, "Yang, Lily L" <lily.l.yang@intel.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@megisto.com>, Zsolt Haraszti <zsolt@modularnet.com>, Alan DeKok <alan.dekok@idt.com>, "Deleganes, Ellen M" <ellen.m.deleganes@intel.com>, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] RE: Summary of path
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: 17e5edc4dfd335965c1d21372171c01c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Weiming, Pls submit this as an issue to the ForCES mailing list. See Jamal's emails for examples. Thanks Hormuzd -----Original Message----- From: Weiming Wang [mailto:wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:42 AM To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; avri@psg.com; forces-protocol@ietf.org; hadi@znyx.com; Wang Weiming Cc: Putzolu, David; Joel M. Halpern; forces-protocol@ietf.org; Steven Blake (petri-meat); Alan DeKok; Deleganes, Ellen M; Yang, Lily L; Zsolt Haraszti; Robert Haas; ram.gopal@nokia.com; donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn Subject: Summary of path Hi all, Below is some of the summary on the current debate on the 'path' , its usage with the individual advantages: 1. Seems agreed that a 'path' is a list of IDs and Indices (rathan than only one 32 bit index as some might have thought). Therefore, the conclusion is a path will be represented by a TLV like format. 2. Seems agreed that the 'path' is composed of two pieces as: path := AttributeID <Index>+ (Jamal suggest to use some flags and count to more precisely represent it. Because this belongs to the issue of refinement, just is skipped currently here) Where, AttributeID is an ID used to uniquely recognize different attributes in an LFB, and will be defined during LFB definitions in the XML document (therefore it's called a static ID by Jamal). Note that in a Query Message, path is also used to query entities other than attributes, including capabilities, and even events, the AttributeID here also has a extensive meaning for IDs that represent all entities operated, such as Capability ID, and Even Event ID( Weiming). An Index is used to index an entry of a table, a array, and a structured data type. Because the data types can be recursively compounded, there is a need for multiple level of indexing, which is represented as a list of indexes. 3. Two debated schemes to use the 'path' idea as below: D1: To use a uniform 'path' field in the Operation TLV in protocol to retrieve all data (use query as example), as: OpTLV(value) := path <data> Where, the 'path' is a TLV like format that includes AttributeID and Indexes, and the two pieces are all MUST, even for attributes that are atomic, or tables with few entires. D2: To separate the 'path' into two pieces explicitly in the protocol definition as: OpTLV(value) := AttributeID <Index(es)> <data> The difference of D2 from D1 is, the AttributeID is MUST, while the <Index(es)> is OPTIONAL in D2. This means protocol users are allowed not to use Index to retieve data from FE, but they definitely have to use AttributeID for it. Because the <Index(es)> part is optional, it can be conceptually included in the followed data field, which means the protocol will not explicitly define how the Indexes are formated, leavine the model to do this just like other attribute data. Advantages for D1: 1) Can supply a direct and straight forward means for data retieving without ambiguity. (Jamal, pls add more) Advantages for D2: 1) Be more flexible to all kinds of attributes, where Index is not necessarily needed, e.g., attributes of atomic data type, of table or array with few entries inside, especially for those attributes which do not originally have indexes, like capabilities, events. ( I reviewed all of our discussions on the 'path' again (especially Zsolt/Steve's Proposal for ForCES Data Encoding), just have a feeling that to use Index in some cases, we really have a tradeoff for the complex Index management. It seems Index will have to be assigned by CE, but capabilites and events that originally exist in FE makes the assignment a total extra work for CE to do). 2) Be clear in the architecture for LFB management. I think of the architecture as below: LFB class / \ LFB Instance ... / \ Attribue ID ... ---- Above is the protocol layer cared ----- / \ Path to entry (Optional) .. ---- Below is the model layer cared ----- / Entry I see the artchitecture for D1 as: LFB class / \ LFB Instance ... / \ Path to entry ... ---- Above is the protocol layer cared ----- / Entry ---- Below is the model layer cared ----- Best Regards, Weiming Here are today's meeting minutes that I took.... Meeting Notes 1. PATH - Weiming wants to split path in 2 pieces, path/attribute id and data (one is static, other depends on the data) Attribute ID may be Table ID. Weiming to post email with text describing the two schemes - include Model team in email (Advantages, disadvantages) 2. MultiLFB Addressing - 3 schemes, Robert to present at the IETF (TLV of multiple LFB instances, MIID, changing LFB class/instance TLV again) Jamal - tradeoff between compute and bandwidth 3. Packet Subscribe - 2 schemes - configure attribute of sink/source LFBs using Config, or special operation Packet Subscribe Resolution - use a Config msg to configure the attribute of some LFBS (Source/Sink like LFBs) Do we need to define the Source/Sink LFBs - we need to define the functionality, these LFBs would probably be defined by the model team Do we need anything special for the packet mirroring - this is part of the LFB attributes 4. Jamal/Robert/Hormuzd had more discussion later on about Jamal's comments on 6.1, 6.2. One resolution was to change the name of operation "SHOW" to "ADVERTISE". Jamal will send out an email to summarize the other topic regarding Events being addressed to LFBs rather than CE, FEs. Let me know if there are any comments, Thanks all for attending, Hormuzd _______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol _______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
- [Forces-protocol] RE: Summary of path Khosravi, Hormuzd M