Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> Tue, 18 September 2007 03:20 UTC

Message-Id: <MON.17.SEP.2007.232013.0400.>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:20:13 -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"

Jamal and I have been discussing the FE Status variable issue.
The following summarizes my concerns, and if we are prepared to allow
the specification of the legitimate value to set as a comment, my
proposed changes to the status enumeration.


The primary issue is that there is no way to cleanly represent the
fact that the CE is only allowed to set the variable to a subset of
the enumeration.  (Even SNMP does not handle that formally.)

As a secondary matter, there is the question of what value the CE
sets the variable to when it wants to turn the FE back on.  It can
not set it to either OperUp or OperDown.  So we need at least one
more value to represent "the CE has told me to become operational,
but I have not yet managed it."  Which is the value the CE would set
the variable to.

As a minor fillip, since I consider administrative something of
larger scope than CE control, I wanted a distinct value for the CE to
use for "I, the CE, am ordering you to stop."

Yours,
Joel