Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] Issue 100: On the issue play

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 23:38:03 -0800

Weiming,

A request on this one, as Jamal suggested lets go with the issues
sequentially. Otherwise it will be impossible for all of us to keep up.
ForCES protocol is not my full time job and that is true for most of the
folks on this team. So I would request that we give everyone some
breading time to understand and comment on all the issues.

Thanks a lot for your understanding and patience,
The issue on multiple channels will be the next, once we resolve the
header.

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 8:17 PM
To: Wang,Weiming
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] Issue 100: On the issue play

On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 22:46, Wang,Weiming wrote:

> > I saw that email. Can we ignore it for now if you dont mind until we
> > address 0-2? I am not gonna respond to your other emails so we can
have
> > some order to any chaos.
> 
> [Weiming Re]
> The multichannel issue is quite related to the congestion control
issue, therefore, if we want to be more focus, I suggest
> just to bigin with 0,1 only, leaving2,3,4 as the following group. Or
else, I think it's reasonable to start with 0-4. Actually we
> already had many discussions on these. It seems not very well to stop
these discussions all of a sudden. Moreover, issue 1 is 
> quite a big issue, I don't think it can be closed within one week.
Then, we can count how much time is left. Therefore, I suggest
> to work with more parallellism. 
> 

The idea is not to agree on the "how"; rather on what of the merger i.e 
that we can narrow any differences into a small tight area. Thats what
needs to be reported back by the 20th. So it should not take many emails
to address issue 1 in that scope. As far as i can see from the
discussion this should be soon closed. 
On issue 2 Hormuzd was putting some text around it. Why not wait until
he does so? I know its hot for you - but it would help to have a
starting point.
In the meantime i think it would be useful if you address issue 0 and 1.
We are going to talk about every issue that is bothering you, not to
worry; lets just do it sequentially.

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

---

From: "Deleganes, Ellen M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:05:38 -0800

I think item 14 can be put off until the protocol work moves forward. I would hope that protocol payload details aren't a gating factor on whether or not the protocols can be merged.

You shouldn't take the model draft too literally. It describes a model not an implementation, so when the model draft uses an ASCII based name like "IPv4 LFB" it is only for human readability, not what is required of an implementation. 

Regards,
Ellen
 
> > 14) Conflict check with current FE model
> 
> This is not a contetious issue - it can be resolved
> later. I actually havent read the latest incarnation
> of the model draft. what did you have in mind?

[Weiming Re]
Maybe I should not use 'conflict', instead should be a cohererent check. For instance, new FE model suppose to use 
ASCII bsed LFB names like "IPv4 LPF". I'm sure an LFB ID will appear in ForCES protocol, then how they are consistent with
each other. Others like something not sured who will define them, and at what level, etc.

Cheers,
Weiming

妟盛冖Y奨俋碯q氘媟墇桩稕
?~婠f杅?ｗ∈
h�Ǭ��-��%����x%��E����趇(�'�~����i����
bz���j)fj��b��?~��z�k���