Re: [SAM] sam-baseline-protocol-00

buford@samrg.org Wed, 18 July 2012 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <buford@samrg.org>
X-Original-To: sam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8342921F867E for <sam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TLRS8AiDRqjg for <sam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CA77721F8675 for <sam@irtf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 17906 invoked by uid 0); 18 Jul 2012 13:24:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO host181.hostmonster.com) (74.220.207.181) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 2012 13:24:24 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=samrg.org; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Cc:To:From:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID; bh=lJadgKOFJrbP7zkERsnE8tegO83rf3xzowBwvSAVdlU=; b=XECR2Qo0B9Z9kamOqMIN1ee9LZs+kLZPbXFnSp7ELh0GqvI7tNfjinCvWYcdDyoMoCy8t47hdsYjSVd2dW/atjTrg/K9mfhQ8EHVwd2GPFaW50UMymBzrqj5MBkGOM+/;
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=49530 helo=www.samrg.org) by host181.hostmonster.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <buford@samrg.org>) id 1SrUEq-0006a0-GO; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:24:24 -0600
Received: from 68.37.208.245 ([68.37.208.245]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user buford@samrg.org) by www.samrg.org with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:24:24 -0600
Message-ID: <d87e07af5bd73956d1edcbe8c8883b1b.squirrel@www.samrg.org>
In-Reply-To: <43463C60-CAED-498A-AD80-9FC349833827@netapp.com>
References: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1207162224420.9044@mw-PC> <BC314931-8A87-460A-BCA8-A136641A4608@netapp.com> <055b01cd64b9$ad1fc440$075f4cc0$@org> <43463C60-CAED-498A-AD80-9FC349833827@netapp.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:24:24 -0600
From: buford@samrg.org
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Identified-User: {:host181.hostmonster.com:samrgorg:host181.hostmonster.com} {sentby:program running on server}
Cc: sam@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [SAM] sam-baseline-protocol-00
X-BeenThere: sam@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "For use by members of the Scalable Adaptive Multicast \(SAM\) RG" <sam.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/sam>, <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/sam>
List-Post: <mailto:sam@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sam>, <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:23:36 -0000

Here is the table in the March draft, section 15:

       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | Message                 |RELOAD Code Point | ALM Message Code |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | CreateALMTRee           | 35               | 00               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | CreateALMTreeResponse   | 36               | 01               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | Join                    | 36               | 02               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | JoinAccept              | 36               | 03               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | JoinReject              | 36               | 04               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | JoinConfirm             | 36               | 05               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | JoinDecline             | 36               | 06               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | Leave                   | 36               | 07               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | LeaveResponse           | 36               | 08               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | Reform                  | 36               | 09               |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | ReformResponse          | 36               | x0A              |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | Heartbeat               | 36               | x0B              |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | Push                    | 36               | x0C              |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+
       | PushResponse            | 36               | x0D              |
       +-------------------------+------------------+------------------+


That is, we are using RELOAD exp_a_req and exp_a_ans for all cases.
So the RELOAD message code will be either 35 or 36.
Inside the RELOAD message body will be one of the ALM message codes.

I will resubmit the draft and let you know the specific message.


John

> Hi,
>
> On Jul 18, 2012, at 9:48, John Buford wrote:
>> We're using the experimental message codes exp_{a,b}_{req,res} defined
>> in
>> 14.8 of p2psip-base-22
>> in the baseline draft presented at Paris
>> (http://www.samrg.org/paris-83/)
>
> Section 14 of the baseline protocol lists 13 message codes, whereas
> Section 14.8 defines the four experimental message codes you list above.
> How are you mapping the 13 to the 4? Also, the values in the baseline
> protocol are different from the ones in p2psip-base-22.
>
>> However I think when I submitted this draft there was a message from the
>> submittal tool
>> that RG items had to be approved by chairs, I don't think I know how do
>> to
>> do that.
>
> Try again and send me the error message, please.
>
> Lars