Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] Protocol Messages: topic 3 & 4a

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 20:49:56 -0700

Jamal,

Thanks for your response, see my comments below..

-----Original Message-----
> Some clarifications so as to answer your two questions:
> 
> 1.  Event reg/de-reg can be very easily implemented by either
following two
> means:
> a. using config msg as I mentioned.  Actually I can not see any
difference of it
> from general config.
>
> b. by event msg itself. That is, event msg include the event report
and event
> register, a flag (or a context) can easily notarize it.
> (Actually I more like the word 'subscribe/unsubscribe' here, but let's
leave it
> for msg writers to choose)
> 

I agree it is not much different from a config called eitehr event
register or subscribe - we can call it subscribe because it is more
general and have a flag differentiating between unsubscribe and
subscribe - perhaps with TLVs for a list of events of interest.

[HK] I am fine with this approach. I like the terminology
subscribe/unsubscribe better than what I was proposing
(register/de-register).

> 2. I suppose Syn msg is one msg, with the flag in the msg body (or
TLV) to
> notarize if it's Join or leave, and as you mentioned using Src/Dst ID
(even  by
> context, as Jamal mentioned) to notarize that of CE or FE (There is no
any
> specific join msg then). Want Jamal to verify it.

probably same context as subscribe above. A command maybe called
synchronize with a flag to distinguish diffrent things.
We need to show a state machine for a FE joining/leaving.
[HK] I don't like the term SYN or synchronize, since it is used by TCP.
May be we can use names like "Association Setup/teardown" or
"Bind/Unbind" which are more ForCES specific ? Let me know which one you
like. Also, I am fine with having a single message such as Association
with a flag to indicate whether it is setup or teardown, although I
think it would be cleaner to have them as separate messages.

Also i mentioned an idea we implemented which was to allow the CE to
send a broadcast SYN messages to reset the FEs.
Even if we dont do it this way, i think we need to have forced restarts.

[HK] Yes, I agree we need to have forced restarts. I think the
Maintenance message with a command/flag such as FE DOWN would be more
suitable for this.

> It's 3am now, and I'm afraid need to go to bed,  therefore have to
hope others
> help you to finally decide it then. I know today is the deadline.

Sorry, i was away but i should be able to respond faster now.

[HK] No problem. Always..better late than never :)

Regards
Hormuzd

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 May 2004 11:42:22 -0400

Hormuzd,

On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 23:49, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

> "Bind/Unbind" which are more ForCES specific ? 

setup/connect etc should be fine. I do find SYN confuses a lot of
people;  TCP seems to have taken a monopoly there ;->

> Let me know which one you

Either is fine.

> Maintenance message with a command/flag such as FE DOWN would be more

Put something out and lets discuss it. What you suggest above sounds
reasonable.

cheers,
jamal