Subject: RE: Progress WAS (RE: [Forces-protocol] issue 1: packet encoding

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:18:55 -0800

Jamal,

I think we might get upto issue#5 at Max in the current time frame.
And if we can resolve upto that, I think it will be a great achievement
!

BTW, I don't think #7 HA will be contentious. Also, we might land up
discussing #8 in the context of the 1-5. I will put together text for
#2, but before that I would really like to resolve #0 since that is
very basic and is needed to proceed forward with a common understanding.

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:21 AM
To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M
Cc: Putzolu, David; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Progress WAS (RE: [Forces-protocol] issue 1: packet
encoding

Hormuzd,

On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 14:19, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

> Just one thing, I don't think we need to get all the issues resolved
by
> this deadline. We can complete the first few issues and send the
results
> of that to the list. I had already sent out the list of high level
> principles that we all agree on and with a few mods we can forward
that
> list to the forces wg as well. I agree with you that its important to
> get the header resolved first, this is a good exercise to see if we
can
> reach some reasonable compromise.
> 

I agree with you on principle. I think we should target at least > 50%
of the issues. Can we put priorities on them?
Heres my take so far (P1 > P2)

0) ID on the header. P1 
1) Encoding P1 - closed
2) Multiple channels/connections - P1- Hormuzd writting text
3) Transport: unicast/multicast/broadcast - P1 
{ TCP, UDP, SCTP, DCCP, Direct over L2 or proprietary backplanes, TIPC} 
4) Congestion control - P2 (solvable - more insight from 2 and 3 above)
5) Reliability - P2 (solvable - more insight from 2 and 3 above)
6) Security - P2 (solvable)
7) High availability -P2 (contentious)
8) Capability exchange - P2 (solvable)
9) The FEM/CEM interface - P2
10) Support for vendor functions - P2
11) Cross check with model draft before it is published - P2
12) Master Slave or peer-peer? - P1 (mostly because it would be
contentious; Avri to write text?)

Hormuzd if you are not writting text for #2, I could. Let me know.

cheers,
jamal

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Mar 2004 17:30:17 -0500

Hormuzd,

> And if we can resolve upto that, I think it will be a great achievement

I think if the momentum picks up after the initial glitches we should
be fine in going past that.

> BTW, I don't think #7 HA will be contentious. 

I labelled it that after a short discussion i had with Ram in 
Mineaopolis. Where is Ram btw?

> Also, we might land up
> discussing #8 in the context of the 1-5. 

I actually think #8 is easy; certainly 1-5 + any other dynamic
discovery issues may map there.

> I will put together text for

Refer to my emails i just posted.

cheers,
jamal