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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:50:25 -0400

Hello hormuzd,

During that same email thread there were some comments raised regarding the initial configuration procedure.

We may need to address that also, looks like that section is not assigned to anyone. May be each of us can provide input 
to that section what are the minimal configurable parameters required.

Regards
Ramg

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of ext Khosravi,
Hormuzd M
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:16 AM
To: Robert Haas; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] effect of new BNF, changes etc etc on
protocol

Good point Robert. I was planning to incorporate Furquan's comments on
HA to that section and then send it out to the team for review. In
general the idea is that each of the previous section owners go through
all the comments they have received on the list and propose appropriate
changes/text. We can then discuss them and ask our co-editor to
incorporate the changes in the draft. I had mentioned this in my
previous email to the list last week, not sure if you read it?

regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Haas
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] effect of new BNF, changes etc etc on
protocol

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

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

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

---

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:02:29 -0700

Sounds good. Glad to see everyone back in action,

Hormuzd :)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:50 AM
To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] effect of new BNF, changes etc etc on
protocol

Hello hormuzd,

During that same email thread there were some comments raised regarding
the initial configuration procedure.

We may need to address that also, looks like that section is not
assigned to anyone. May be each of us can provide input 
to that section what are the minimal configurable parameters required.

Regards
Ramg

-----Original Message-----

regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----

Regards,
-Robert

---

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:32:05 -0700

Robert, 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Haas [mailto:[email-masked]] 

>We can then discuss them and ask our co-editor to
>incorporate the changes in the draft.
>
I hadn't seen this co-editor word until now. I thought Avri was the 
editor and we are supposed to be the co-authors. Anyway, I assume you 
meant Avri.

[HK] Yes I meant Avri, I saw this word in the draft actually...Avri's
name is listed on the front page as co-editor :) This terminology came
from her directly...I thought the front page would say FP Team, but I am
fine with this as well.

BTW, can we use first names in emails, instead of co-authors, etc ;))

regards
Hormuzd