Re: question about transaction operation in ForCES protocol draft!
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Sun, 23 December 2007 12:21 UTC
Message-Id: <SUN.23.DEC.2007.072120.0500.>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:21:20 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Subject: Re: question about transaction operation in ForCES protocol draft!
Comments: To: Chuanhuang Li <chuanhuang_li@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Sun, 2007-23-12 at 19:12 +0800, Chuanhuang Li wrote: > Hi: > we are implementing the ForCES protocol,I have one question in the > Transaction Protocol part. > > in the draft: > 1: TRCOMP is sent by the CE to signal the FE(s) that the > transaction they have COMMITed is now over. This allows the FE(s) > an > opportunity to clear state they may have kept around to perform a > rollback (if it became necessary). (page 22) > 2: The FE MUST respond to the CE's EOT message. (page 22) > If all participating FE(s) respond with a success indicator within > the expected time, then the CE MUST issue a TRCOMP operation to all > participating FEs. An FE MUST NOT respond to a TRCOMP. (page 23) > > question: > We assume that the transaction operation is occured between CE and > one FE, Note: Transactional operation is used for the case where you have to transfer state to _more than one_ FE and where such state has to be consistent (eg adding a single route on more than one FE). > if there is failure when FE executes the full transaction, and it > tells the result to CE through sending COMMIT-RESPONSE message. > Whether FE should clear state they have kept still after it received > the TRCOMP message? It should wait for TRCOMP. > or CE shouldn't send the TRCOMP message in this case,and FE will clear > the information once there is error? This would be inconsistent. If you use transaction, then the state machine says you have to wait for TRCOMP. > I think the latter may be a better solution,but the draft hasn't > explained it clearly. If you have a single FE and dont want to incur the extra overhead of transactional procedure, then dont use transacational messaging. > > Hope your answers!! Hope above is helpful. cheers, jamal
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Chuanhuang Li
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Chuanhuang Li
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… JiaFenggen
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Chuanhuang Li
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Chuanhuang Li
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… JiaFenggen
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Chuanhuang Li
- question about transaction operation in ForCES pr… Chuanhuang Li
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: question about transaction operation in ForCE… Jamal Hadi Salim