Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] topic 4c: Common Header

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:26:23 -0700

Jamal,

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

On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 23:46, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

> [HK] 
> I think HB msgs are special as such (we have put them in a separate
> category in the Reqs as well) and we definitely need responses for
them.
> It might be better to define HBs are separate msgs rather than
> Events...do you agree ? 

That sounds reasonable. Note, however, i gave that as just as an example
because we used that feature. There could be vendor specific messages
which may have these needs. What is the cost of adding such a feature?

[HK] So just to clarify, you would like to have an ACK flag in the
header to indicate whether you need a Response/Ack for a particular msg
or not...correct ? If that is the case, then I agree that this is not
very costly, just 1 bit in the header...I can live with this if you
think this is something your customers want. I will always have this
turned on in my code, cause all our customers want responses for all the
control msgs. Let me know if this one is resolved, then ?

> In any case, the point that I was trying to make
> is that you do need responses for all your control msgs such as
> Association Setup, Config, Query, Subscribe, State Maintenance (I
notice
> I forgot to all Responses for the latter 2 in my protocol message
> summary). Do you agree ?

Except when you deliver such messages from FE towards CE where they come
out as events. Did we settle on whether we want to do this? Refer to
discussion on peer model.

[HK] I think we did, but let me respond to the peer model email.

Thanks
Hormuzd

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 05 May 2004 22:34:16 -0400

> control msgs. Let me know if this one is resolved, then ?

I think the ACK flag would be sufficient to close this. 

cheers,
jamal

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:13:58 +0800

Hormuzd,

I also think a ACK flag to give customers more flexibility will be benificial
for our protocol being futher more widely used.

One thing now remained is we may now need to decide if we put ACK as a specific
msg and included in the msgs, or just let others such as common header section
do it.

I also think, by carefully designing the ACK msg, we may able to have it only as
one msg to include 'positive', 'negative', and specific response functions.

Cheers,
Weiming

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email-masked]>