Re: [NSIS] state management and the nsis framework

"Georgios Karagiannis" <karagian@cs.utwente.nl> Tue, 13 May 2003 13:29 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11369 for <nsis-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 May 2003 09:29:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4DCtSv21612 for nsis-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 May 2003 08:55:28 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4DCtIB21594; Tue, 13 May 2003 08:55:18 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4DCjiB20934 for <nsis@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 May 2003 08:45:44 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA10939 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 May 2003 09:19:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19FZiO-0003nF-00 for nsis@ietf.org; Tue, 13 May 2003 09:21:08 -0400
Received: from utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl ([130.89.10.247]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19FZiN-0003n9-00 for nsis@ietf.org; Tue, 13 May 2003 09:21:07 -0400
Received: from utip105 (utip105.cs.utwente.nl [130.89.13.76]) by utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h4DDMA5s005603; Tue, 13 May 2003 15:22:10 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <003301c31952$aa212f20$4c0d5982@dynamic.cs.utwente.nl>
From: Georgios Karagiannis <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
To: "Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock@roke.co.uk>
Cc: nsis@ietf.org
References: <76C92FBBFB58D411AE760090271ED4181EA9A9@rsys002a.roke.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [NSIS] state management and the nsis framework
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 15:22:12 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: nsis-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: nsis-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Robert

[reh]
> > in terms of what is being discussed below, could you clarify
> > if you see
> > any difference in overall NSIS functionality between our two
> > descriptions
> > (and what this difference is).
> >
> > if there is no overall difference, could you explain why you
> > prefer your
> > split of responsibility between NSLP/NTLP. what you propose
> > seems to me
> > to assume a closer customisation of NTLP functionality to
> > support one specific
> > signalling application that I feel we should be aiming for.
>                          ^^^^
> should be:              "than"
>

[GK]
The main difference is the following:
* In my proposed text, the NTLP is used to provide NTLP soft state
management,
   meaning that NTLP refresh messages are used. The NSLP is using this
procedure
   for NSLP soft state management. If a NTLP state is not refreshed, then
the NSLP instance
   is informed about it. Moreover, for inter-domain signaling no NSLP
refresh
   messages are needed. Please note that a NSLP might choose to not use the
NTLP soft
   state management.

* If  I understood you correctly, in your proposed text you are in favour of
using
   the NSLP protocol to provide the NSLP and NTLP soft state manegement.
Meaning that
   each NSLP will have to use its own refresh messages for providing NSLP
and NTLP soft state
   management.

In my opinion my proposed text is presenting a NTLP/NSLP soft state
management concept that is not specific
for one signaling application, but that is general and can be used for all
types of signaling applications.
Please note that this soft state management concept is similar to the soft
state manegement concept presented
in the Bob Braden's draft, see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-braden-2level-signal-arch-01.txt

However, please note that these two proposals could be combined. The NSLP
that does not use the NTLP
soft state management concpet could provide its own by using NSLP refresh
messages.

Best regards,
Georgios


_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis