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

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 May 2004 11:22:40 -0400

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 15:27, Weiming Wang wrote:
> Hormuzd,
> 
> 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.

> 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.
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.
 
> 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.

cheers,
jamal

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

---

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 13:45:08 -0700

Jamal,

I am fine with all your comments below. I'll send out another email to
summarize our discussions on Protocol Messages and motivate next steps.

Thanks for the prompt responses !

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:42 AM
To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M
Cc: Weiming Wang; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] Protocol Messages: topic 3 & 4a

Hormuzd,

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

> > 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
> [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 ? 

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
> 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.

Either is fine.

> [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.
> 

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

cheers,
jamal