Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues
"Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> Sat, 15 September 2007 16:20 UTC
Message-Id: <SAT.15.SEP.2007.122037.0400.>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:20:37 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
Subject: Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
If we want the FEState to be the way that a cE administratively disables and FE, then we would need to make a larger change. When I drafted the FEState component, my expectation was that administratively disable would reflect non-Forces interaction, such as a "disable" CLI command. Given that the other two values (operationally disabled and operationally enabled) can not be used as the value in a set operation, I think that to change this we would have to create two separate variables, a read-write admin-status and a read-only operation-status. (I thought we had that at one point and decided not to keep it, but I could be confused.) Yours, Joel At 10:35 AM 9/13/2007, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: >On Thu, 2007-13-09 at 00:50 -0400, B. J. Kang wrote: > > > I have already seen both the article "Protocol" and "Model",but i > don't see any > > more information about this(FEO Adminup). I have read them and tried to > > implement them about several mouths, may I lose some thing? > >FEO LFB belongs to the model; the text in the protocol mentions it in >passing and not in greater detail. Sorry, I should have been more >specific in my response to you: >Section 8.2 of version 7 of the model talks about FEO LFB attribute >FEState which is of type FEStatusValue that contains a possibility of >setting Admin to disable or operational status to on/off. "Admin up" is >intended to mean configuring that attribute to Admin enabled. >The discussion as i recall was to not have adminEnable enumeration >because operational enable in this case implied Admin enabled. >Looking at the model draft i saw that FEState is defined as read-only. > >So you actually bring two issues that need to be fixed: >1)Since the model is still being edited, I think we need to change that >control to be read-write instead of read-only. Does that make sense >Joel? >2) Since this has caused some headache, to avoid the next person having >the same issue, the protocol needs to be very explicit > >I have tried to open tracker issues but it seems down; >Joel, Avri - i guess the only way to keep track of this is write it down >somewhere? > >In any case, B. J. Kang, thanks for bringing these issues up. > >cheers, >jamal
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Wang,Weiming
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues SUBSCRIBE FORCES B. J. Kang
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues SUBSCRIBE FORCES B. J. Kang
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Joel M. Halpern
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Joel M. Halpern
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Joel M. Halpern
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Joel M. Halpern
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues B. J. Kang
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues SUBSCRIBE FORCES B. J. Kang
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Joel M. Halpern
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues SUBSCRIBE FORCES B. J. Kang
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Joel M. Halpern
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues B. J. Kang
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues Joel M. Halpern
- ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues B. J. Kang