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

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:19:56 -0800

Jamal,

I apologize for not having responded on issue 0, 1 yet. I had an early
morning meeting today but will do this by end of day today.

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.

Regards
Hormuzd 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim

On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 01:42, Putzolu, David wrote:
> Avri wrote >
> > I have a general question about headers, is there any feeling in
this 
> > group that a common header could not be arrived at.  If not then we 
> > could move on to other issues.  The reason I ask is that one 
> > can spend 
> > a whole lot of time fine tuning a header to be just right.  If there

> > are as of yet unresolved issues on the header, can anyone list them?
> 
> I agree with Avri, 

On the one hand i wanna say lets skip so we can make progress.
OTOH, I am a little worried that the gaps in point of view
are so huge that this will cause problems later. 
The only way we can close faster is if ontopic emails are addressed in
the fastest possible way.

On a personal level i am trying to prioritize responding to things
on this list. But sometime i get a little discouraged. Example my last
emails on topic 0 and topic 1 have not been responded to for at least
24 hours. Actually they have been a response which happens to be off
topic. This worries me because i dont think we will make the deadline.
If theres 10-12 serious issues and we have about 10 days to go
AND we havent closed a single issue up to now --> theres _no way_ 
we can meet the deadline. We need to close 2 issues a day.

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Mar 2004 07:21:30 -0500

Hormuzd,

> 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