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

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 14:33:56 -0700

Jamal, Weiming,

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

Something else we havent talked about in the header.
The response part. I see two types of responses (gaian based on netlink2
experience):

1) Positive reply.
This would probably be the same message as the config with ACK flag
turned on.

2) Negative reply
In our case we had a speacial command for this. It contained the result
code and the old header cutnpasted back so you can identify which
message has an error.

I think we need to have both types of responses allowed. I noticed a few
other protocols are defining this sort of responses lately.
[Weiming]I agree. Actually we need to discuss the ACK msg now.
Hornestly, I'm
now with a little confusion between the 'ACK' and the 'response', their
definitions, scope,and differences.

[HK] Let me try to clarify this question about ACK vs Response. I
thought we had already discussed and closed on this before (for common
header in Protocol Analysis team), but may be I am wrong. Anyways we
need an Ack or Response for almost all messages (except control packet
Redirect msgs & Events/HBs) to meet the timeliness requirement specified
in the Requirements rfc. So we don't really need an ACK Flag in the
header as I see it. The difference between an ACK msg and Response msg
in my mind is that, an ACK only provides an acknowledgement from the
receiver, that it received the message that was sent to it. A Response
msg provides bit more information e.g. if a Config was sent by the CE to
FE, the Config Resp msg says whether Config was successful or not on the
FE, if partially successful then which config parameters failed. Another
example would be a Query Resp which would give the results of the Query
such as some FE or LFB attributes, FE Caps, etc. So to answer your
question Jamal, Yes I think we need both kinds of Replies and the
Response messages will address both of these replies. Do you agree ?

Hope this helps,

regards
Hormuzd

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 May 2004 22:36:15 -0400

> Response messages will address both of these replies. Do you agree ?

I will have to wait and see what the response message looks like.
To me theres no ambiguity in the desire to have responses when things go
wrong or right. There will also be times when i wont be interested in
the response (and this is not just in the case of events).  
You can call it big spoon(ACK/NACK) or spade(positive/neg reply) as long
as it ends delivering the above functionality. 

cheers,
jamal