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

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Oct 2004 11:21:54 -0400

Folks,

I am listing a partial list of items that change the way we view draft
0.

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
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.

I know theres an outstanding list of open issues; hopefully someone will
post them.
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. Whats
important is the presentation at the meeting covers addressed issues
and the draft does as well when it gets published.

cheers,
jamal

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

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:25:22 +0200

To add to Jamal's list of open issues, I wanted to remind my co-authors 
of the following:

Some time back, there has been a long thread initiated by comments from 
Furquan (heartbeats, channels, TMLs vs PL responsibilities, missing FSMs 
to describe CE and FE behavior in cases such as failover), and a very 
short thread with valuable comments from Zsolt (TML layering, FE ID 
allocation by CE, query-response correlation and use of sequence numbers).

Did we capture the issues raised in those threads into an open-issue 
list ? I think we did not agree yet how to answer all of their comments, 
yet they are essential for a sound base of the ForCES protocol, I think. 
So I will focus now on some of the issues related to heartbeat, 
addressing and layering, and bring up proposals to our list so we are 
all aware and can agree on them. I encourage my co-authors to do the 
same and revisit those threads if necessary. Incorporating those 
proposals into the relevant sections of the draft could be the editor's 
task. Or do we want to proceed differently ?

Regards,
-Robert

-- 
Robert Haas
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
phone +41-1-724-8698  fax +41-1-724-8578  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha