Subject: [Forces-protocol] RE: sync with BNF as discussed with model folks

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:48:12 -0700

Jamal,

Thanks for doing this, if this is the basics...I think it looks pretty
good!
We should be able to start updating the sections pretty soon :)

I had a few comments...
6.1 -> looks good...could change some names for the Ts, but that's fine
6.2 -> I don't think this Has_to_be removed. We can still use the format
similar to what you have suggested with the Query message...Unless we
think that operations such as GET/SET need to be bundled in a single
message (which has not been my experience), we can leave the Query msgs
in with new format.
6.3 -> looks good...we might still need the Flags, also the Event Type
is needed since Event Subscribe, UnSubscribe are currently part of this
message.
6.4 -> answer to your question is above-subscription is part of Config
msg currently. I think Event notification is quite different from Config
and makes sense to have this separate. For most cases, these are
asynchronous and do not need a response back either.(The format is
similar to Config)
6.5 -> looks good.
6.6 -> Fine...I am assuming the States will be exchanged in Event msgs ?
6.7 -> remains the same (I assume)

Let me know how you would like to proceed once we finalize this.
I will be happy to update my sub-sections, but if you are eager to help
out with writing the sub-sections as well, I am fine with that.

regards
Hormuzd 

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

In my usual style (which i find effective - nothing is forgotten) is to
capture things contionously.
I have cross referenced the messages and what i think should change.
Not cast in stone, but we have to start somewhere.

I think its imperative we clear the air, otherwise its a waste of time
updating the draft.

cheers,
jamal

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Oct 2004 22:36:53 -0400

Hormuzd,

Great - Now we can make progress!

> 6.1 -> looks good...could change some names for the Ts, but that's fine

Names are resolvable little detail we can worry about later.

> message (which has not been my experience), we can leave the Query msgs

Theory is they can be bundled.
Is there a reason you want to keep that type=query?

> is needed since Event Subscribe, UnSubscribe are currently part of this

Probably makes sense to keep event subscription under config. Sorry
I missed that in my quick scan and thought it belonged to type=event in
6.4.
Do we then need operation = Event_un/subscribe
I suspect that events will end up being defined in the LFB XML
definition and therefore will have a path to them (eg link event in port
LFB being path 1.2.3 etc).
In which case, the value of the Event_un/subscribe will be to the
event.
Thoughts? 
 
> asynchronous and do not need a response back either.(The format is

Agreed on the config. The notifications sound good for a start; we could
refine later. 

> 6.5 -> looks good.

Ok

> 6.6 -> Fine...I am assuming the States will be exchanged in Event msgs ?

Since everything is an LFB, then its per LFB event - in this case i
would guess the states will belong to the FE Object LFB?

> 6.7 -> remains the same (I assume)

I missed that one, sorry.
Again my take is this is gone. I would think this would per FE
heartebats belong to the FE Protocol LFB.
I think that the two FE LFBs deserve speacial attention now.
We need to describe what they are expected to do in more detail. We also
need to sync on them with the model people.

> out with writing the sub-sections as well, I am fine with that.

My take on it is we can make progress sooner than i thought.
I think what would be really valuable is to other people respond.
If it was up to you and me, with concerted effort we can get it done by
monday ;-> So I am optimistic we can get it done by Friday or sooner.

Lets hear from the other people; Quiet a few sections need cleaning up
to sync with the new approach ("everything is an LFB"); so more people
we have, the better. It wont harm to start cleaning up the sections as
per your earlier posting. 

cheers,
jamal