Subject: [Forces-protocol] RE: Feedback on section 6.3

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:44:02 -0700

Jamal,

Thanks for your comments and very sorry for the delay in responding to
you,
I hope you will understand (having a 6 month old yourself)...
Pls see my replies below...

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

section 6.3

- 6.3.1  Config Message

+ "Config data"   should be "Config data and path"
[Sure, this is minor, I'll make this change in the next version]

+ Type is bad to describe operations. That should be operations
[not sure what you mean?, this is according to your diagram]

+ UPDATE/REPLACE, DEL ALL are really flag extensions which will become
clear once we have path-data noise cleared. Suggest you remove.
[These are basic operations everyone (including model team) agrees with,
I don't think these are related with path-data in any way...]

+ What is PACKET SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE?
[This is to support the Requirements RFC section 6 #9 "The ForCES
protocol MUST also define a way for the CE to configure the behavior of
a) and b) (above), to specify which packets are affected by each"...I
you have an alternative way to support this in the protocol messages,
let me know]

- 6.3.2  Config Response Message

Why do we have " Operation Result "
As far as i can see it is sufficient to look at the Main header type,
a operation, path and its associated data.
Unless this is meant to be a less verbose result? [exactly, that's the
reason]

+ BTW, what is the point of mentioning "single or Array LFB
       specific result entries" or result might be TLV. Just say the 
presentation of the data is stuill under discussion.
[sure, I will make this change as well in the next release...hopefully
we have more details by then ]

Thanks & Regards
Hormuzd

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