Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: 01-8

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:29:38 -0700

Yes, this is exactly what I requested.

Thanks a lot, I am glad we resolved this misunderstanding!

Good Night!
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:24 AM
To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M
Cc: Ligang Dong; [email-masked]; Wang,Weiming; Robert Haas;
Jamal Hadi Salim; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: 01-8

On 25 okt 2004, at 03.13, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

> Just to clarify my position one final time, I believe you are the 
> editor
> of this draft and I did not intent to start any fight again. I was
> thinking of the Requirements RFC when I asked you to add our
addresses.
> If it is easy enough, we should just do this in the final generated 
> text
> file...the header should list your name as editor and the small text
> paragraph with our names (authors) as it was before (01-7) and we 
> should
> have all our addresses at the end. That's all.

ok.  does this variant meet with your approval?

http://psg.com/~avri/forces/draft/draft-ietf-forces-protocol-01-10.txt

a.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:34:26 -0400

> Thanks a lot, I am glad we resolved this misunderstanding!
by moving it to an appendix, i think it looks a little better. as it 
then comes at the right place in the document.

do you still approve?

http://psg.com/~avri/forces/draft/draft-ietf-forces-protocol-01-11.txt

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:17:41 -0400

I have submitted the following draft:

hope it is ok.

a.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:51:35 +0200

Avri,
Looks good. I have a few corrections, although not essential for now, 
unless you can't sleep after all the excitment on the list ...

- In the Config Response Msg section, the draft says

   Type (16 bits):
       The operations are same as those defined for Config messages.

whereas the other messages (Query, Event Notif) have now explicitely 
defined a "*-Response" operation type.  The table should therefore now 
look like:

   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+
   |     Operation     | Query | Query-Resp | Config | Config-Resp |
   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+
   |        Set        |       |            |    X   |             |
         Set-Response                                       X
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   |       Delete      |       |            |    X   |             |
       Delete-Response                                      X
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   |       Update      |       |            |    X   |            |
       Update-Response                                      X 
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   |        Get        |   X   |            |        |             |
        Get-Response                  X 
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   |  Event subscribe  |       |            |    X   |             |
   |  Ev.Sub.-Response |       |            |        |      X      |
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   | Event unsubscribe |       |            |    X   |             |
   | Ev.Unsub.-Response|       |            |        |      X      |
   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+

     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
     | Operation | Packet-Redir | Event-Notif | Event-Notif-Resp |
     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
     |  Payload  |       X      |             |                  |
     |           |              |             |                  |
     |   Report  |              |      X      |                  |
     |Report-Resp|              |             |         X        |
     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
Note that Operation "Event" was changed to "Report"

And the text I quoted above in the Config-Resp section 6.3.2 should be 
changed accordingly to :

   Type (16 bits):
       The operations include, ADD-Resp, DEL-Resp, UPDATE/REPLACE-Resp, DEL ALL-Resp, EVENT
       SUBSCRIBE-Resp, EVENT UNSUBSCRIBE-Resp, PACKET SUBSCRIBE, CANCEL-Resp.

I would drop in 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 the operation types PACKET *SUBSCRIBE. 
Note that all the messages above don't appear in the summary table, but 
maybe we should not overload the table with all of them.

-  add an Editorial's note after the text below (search for MIID):

      *  MIID table: a list of virtual LFB Instance IDs that map to a
         list of Instance IDs of LFBs in that FE

Editoral's note: it remains to be decided whether such an MIID table 
should be  used.

- search and correct typo "GET_RESPOSE"

- add a newline between Inter-FE topology and Intra-FE topology (sec 6.1.2):

         Note:  The attributes below were previously under Query
                message.
      *  Inter-FE topology Intra-FE topology

- you should appear as "Editor", not "co-editor". At least that's my 
understanding. Also, the ETRI name appears on the first page. I thought 
you said you didn't want that ? I personally don't care.

- I like the name "Core ForCES LFBs"

Thanks,
-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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:36:10 -0400

> unless you can't sleep after all the excitment on the list ...

Too late.  I went to sleep after submitting at 4:30 AM.  Not that I 
could have changed anything after submitting.  I submitted before going 
to sleep because I did not want to risk missing the deadline and was 
not sure that i would be able to do any useful editing after 2-3 sleep 
anyway.

so these edits will go in -02

http://psg.com/~avri/forces/draft/draft-ietf-forces-protocol-02-1.txt

>       Update-Response                                      X   |       
>        Get-Response                  X   |                   |       | 
>            |        |             |

done

done

>       SUBSCRIBE-Resp, EVENT UNSUBSCRIBE-Resp, PACKET SUBSCRIBE, 

done

> I would drop in 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 the operation types PACKET *SUBSCRIBE.

I did not understand what you wanted here.

i notice you include PACKET SUBSCRIBE in your change, but not 
UNSUBSCIBE.

While 6.3.1 current has both.  I am not sure what change you are 
suggesting.

I have left them alone for the moment.

> Note that all the messages above don't appear in the summary table, 
> but maybe we should not overload the table with all of them.

don't mind adding them.  what do folks think?
i do need to find a way to adjust the table cell sizes so that it looks 
a little better.

speaking of aesthetics, as the draft gets closer to being finished.  i 
will work on getting pictures to stay on a single page.  not worth the 
effort before then.

that is assuming i stay in the (co) editor role.  otherwise someone 
else can do it.

> Editoral's note: it remains to be decided whether such an MIID table 

done.

I should have noticed this was still an open issue.  Actually i did 
notice, i just forgot to note it in the draft.

> - search and correct typo "GET_RESPOSE"

found one instance. fixed.

>      *  Inter-FE topology Intra-FE topology

done

>
> - you should appear as "Editor", not "co-editor".

I have never been sure of that.  and therefore listed myself as 
co-editor, since i was pretty sure i was functioning as at least that.

> At least that's my understanding. Also, the ETRI name appears on the 
> first page. I thought you said you didn't want that ? I personally 
> don't care.

i had removed it, but in the exercise to put all the names in the 
header, i reinserted and forgot to remove it. removed it now.

> - I like the name "Core ForCES LFBs"

yeah, me too.

> Thanks,

thank you.

a.

ps.  i put repositories for -01 on the web site

psg.com/~avri/forces/draft/draft-ietf-forces-protocol-01.[txt, zip, 
tar, tsg]