Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] FE Protocol LFBs

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:30:06 -0700

Weiming, All 

We should definitely define these LFBs related with FE, Protocol, etc as
part of the protocol draft. There is no need to have them in a separate
draft

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Wang,Weiming [mailto:[email-masked]] 

>
> Also dont forget to look at the overview section in the latest draft
> posted by Avri. Theres a little refinement of the split of the two
LFBs
> (each in its own section).
> As to what to do about the FE Object and FE Protocol object, My
opinion
> is we should define everything taht we think we will need.
> I would think the model team will take those needs and make sure its
> part of the XML spec. Weiming, are you suggesting to do the xml from
us?
[Weiming] Yes, but I'm not sure if it should be defined inside this
protocol
text or just by another draft. I remember you also mentioned such
thought
before. We actually have the same question on Redirect LFBs, anyway any
LFB like
things that between FE model and protocol. Now it seems very popular to
summarize everything as LFB, I even think of TML layer as LFBs from PL
layer,
but not sure.

cheers,
weiming

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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Oct 2004 22:46:51 -0400

Hormuzd,
Hold that thought; I think given the way things are going, the FE object
and Protocol LFBs may become beasts that deserve their own drafts.
Same with the redirector that Weiming is talking about.

For now lets hold them in the draft as is, but there should certainly be
opportunity for them to go out and coauthored by people other than the
model team.

cheers,
jamal