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

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 19:40:07 -0700

Jamal,

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

There is actually one challenge with keeping the LFBid in the header:
You cant mix different LFBs in one batch. In order to send a batch with 
different LFB commands you have to send a batch of separate PL messages.

We could introduce an "opaque" LFBid which translates to "look inside
the message body for LFB type" and then that could be used for mixed LFB
messages.

[HK] Good point, thanks for bringing this up. I remember having
discussed this before. Yes we will need the concept of "opaque" LFB Type
ID, if we have it in the common header and have to support Command
Bundling (diff LFB Types in the same msg)

regards
Hormuzd

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

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:59:29 +0800

Hormuzd, Jamal,

Sorry I did not catch up with LFB id discussion well.  Just a few questions
regarding it:

1. We seem pay more attention to LFBtype ID, what about the LFB Instance ID
then?
2. Jamal, I have a feeling that you seem very careful not to put too many flags
in msg bodies. I wonder if there are some technical disadvantage or barrier
behind to do like this according to your implementation experience?  Hornestly,
I'm short of experiences on this.

Thank you.
Weiming

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

Jamal,

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

regards
Hormuzd

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 06 May 2004 07:40:51 -0400

Weiming,

> 1. We seem pay more attention to LFBtype ID, what about the LFB Instance ID

Sorry, I caused the confusion by calling it LFBId. It is actually
LFBTYPE that uniquely maps to the type of LFB. Do that substituion in
the text and it will make sense. The Instanc ID should be in the body
message. 

> I'm short of experiences on this.

I am not picky. I think flags in the main header are for extending the
message. A lot of of protocols i know keep them there - thats where my
bias is coming from. I have no problem with putting flags in the
submsg;however, since you will have flags in the main header, why not
use them? Note we can also have flags in the TLVs T part. I think
diameter does this.

cheers,
jamal