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

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 10:45:24 -0700

Weiming,

Sorry for the late reply. Pls see my comments below.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Weiming Wang

[WeimingRe] I'm afraid there is a little contradiction here with your
idea. To
make more use of MsgType field is to have more messages, rights? My
original
idea was to use the field more fully.  E.g., I would prefer to
distinguish msgs
such as config, query, and event msgs between the LFB config, event, and
query
from others, because I'm sure the msgs for LFB operations are quite
different
from others like FE coarse layer operations (as Robert proposed for FE
LFB or I
proposed for FE slave). This LFB difference is much bigger than the
difference
of association 'Setup' and 'Teardown'. My idea is If we have decided to
use
flags in msg body to describe the former difference, we have no reason
not to
use the msg body flag for the latter description, unless you can present
other
reasons that the 'setup' and 'teardown' MUST be two msgs other than that
the Msg
type field is enough.
[/Weiming]

[HK] I am actually fine with having separate sub-types of FE, LFB in
Config/Query msg

[WeimingRe] Actually I don't see any differences between the two schemes
you
proposed,  I don't think it is me who have slowed down the progress in
this
point :)  What I just want to know is the reasonable reason (other than
making
more use of MsgType) why you don't agree the following two schemes,
instead to
use more complex scheme:

1. to use flags in the msg body to describe the operation of
'setup/resp'
'teardown'.  I think Jamal more inclide to this also.
2. to use flags or an FE attribute to describe subscribing/unsubscribing
events.
I think Jamal more means the subscribe function is important.
[/WeimingRe]
[HK] I have already pointed out why I don't like flags for describing
msg types, pls refer to my previous emails...but I am not religious
about this. As regards Suscribe, I think this is fundamentally different
from Config, they mean very different things. Unless you say that
"Subscribing for Events" is a FE or LFB attribute...?? Anyways we can
discuss this in the call.

[WeimingRe] Not actually. If you'd like to have the Prefix to make me
happy, pls
add some for msgs like query, config:).  I actually don't care if using
FE setup
or not, because I have seriously considered your idea that we may need
to setup
CE in the future.
[HK] Thanks for the consideration

[WeimingRe] I think I have already given up pushing the prefix for the
purpose
of our fast progress. I'm not sure why you mention this here again. Do
you think
it is still the barrier?
[/WeimingRe]

[HK] No, not from my side atleast. I was thinking this is something that
you wanted.

Regards
Hormuzd

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