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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:49:13 +0200

On 29 apr 2004, at 08.34, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

> I'm also sure we will have
> messages that
> can only be allowed functioning in one direction, e.g., config. msg.
> which is
> only allowed  from CE->FE. Unless we decide that our model is purely
> peer-to-peer instead  mainly Master-slave based. (Jamal, Avri:
> we may need to lunch this master-slave issue discussion right now along
> with the
> protocol message discussion).

Even in the peering, or semi-peer, model there may be messages that 
only make sense when coming from one type of peer or the other.  So 
certainly a cfg message of the type - set this as your config only 
makes sense coming from the CE.  But a config message that says my 
config has been changed by a third party could come from the FE and 
will probably look a lot like a 'set this config' message.

a.

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