Subject: [Forces-protocol] HB msgs ?

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:34:32 -0700

Jamal,

I agree with you. However, Weiming (Robert ?) have different views on
this.
How do we resolve this ? I don't want us to be stuck on this.

I guess the key question that I would ask is if we want Event msg to
symbolize asynchronous events or we want to mix the semantics with
synchronous msgs as well ? I think keeping the 2 separate is cleaner,
but I am open to other views as well.

Avri, could you share your opinion on this ?

Thanks
Hormuzd

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

Hormuzd,
Strange but we raised the same questions asynchronously ;->
It is semantically cleaner to see HB as synchronous as opposed to 
async - which is closely mapped to events. So it may make sense
to have them as separate. The subscribe unsucribe is very valuable to
have even if the messages are separate.

cheers,
jamal

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

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 11:29:36 +0800

Hormuzd, Jamal, and all,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Jamal,

I agree with you. However, Weiming (Robert ?) have different views on
this.
How do we resolve this ? I don't want us to be stuck on this.
[Weiming] One more thing we should note is, we have totally only arround 10
message types for our protocol, to have another 2 to 4 msgs specifically for HB
looks really  biased and makes it more or less ugly in the appearance of our
protocol.
I even more prefer to the scheme to treat HB as an LFB (I remember Jamal
mentioned this), than to have separate msgs for them.
[/Weiming]

I guess the key question that I would ask is if we want Event msg to
symbolize asynchronous events or we want to mix the semantics with
synchronous msgs as well ? I think keeping the 2 separate is cleaner,
but I am open to other views as well.
[Weiming] I don't think we may need to distinguish semantically the syn. and
asyn. msgs in our protocol, because they have no principal difference in our
scope.  We can say an event notification is asyncronous, but we can also say any
query or config from CE to FE is also asyncronous. Actually I just think it
makes little sense to distinguish them.

Thanks
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----

Hormuzd,

cheers,
jamal

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 12:02:16 +0200

Hi,

I have seen both situations, where people want to force acknowledgment 
of Event messages and where they don't and thus have resorted to use a 
config message options and flags that indicated whether, and which, 
event messages required acks. the messages themselves can also contains 
flags indicating whether an ack was required.

I tend to think of the behavior of event messages as being special 
enough to require their own semantics and configuration options.

Not sure this helps.

a.