Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] effect of new BNF, changes etc etc on protocol

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:25:32 -0700

Jamal,

Thanks for posting this, I am most fine with what you propose.
Pls see my comments below...

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

1) BNF changes.
Major issue being the query and query response appear to be gone.
Instead we now have a CONFIG/GET and CONFIG-resp/GET
[HK] We could still keep the Query and Config separate, I don't think we
have to remove Config...it would actually be cleaner that way. But I am
fine if most of you would like to remove it.

Unfortunately unless the data-path is well defined this is going to be
tricky to move forward on. So i will put some effort in getting the
path-data definition going. Please chip in the discussion with the other
folks from the model team.

2) The fact that its now a world of "everything is an LFB" and
introduction of FE protocol and FEObject LFBs implies that same messages
may have to go. Specifically, it seem state maintanance and event
messages would need redefining.
[HK] Yes we need to decide about State Maintenance msgs, I am fine
either ways. I don't think Event msgs are affected by this.

It is my belief that draft 1 needs to address these issues to look
progressive. It shouldnt matter if we publish it in time or not.
[HK] I think this is important in order to make a presentation and show
progress.

Regards
Hormuzd

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Oct 2004 14:55:56 -0400

Hormuzd,

I will put a little note together and post in the next 30 minutes or so.
In regards to your draft target, I agree we should shoot to beat the
25th deadline (will depend on how we move forward on basics first).
So lets shoot for next Friday to be done with basics?

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Oct 2004 15:12:20 -0400

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