Subject: [Forces-protocol] RE: Feedback: Section 6.2

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:20:50 -0700

Jamal,

It seems like your comments on 6.2 are colliding with the comments that
Robert had sent, lets discuss this in the call (last 15 mins on agenda).
I am fine either way,

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:23 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Robert Haas; [email-masked]; Ligang Dong;
[email-masked]; Khosravi, Hormuzd M; Weiming Wang
Subject: Feedback: Section 6.2

- Section 6.2.1

 	     +--- T = Operation = SHOW
   		      |
   		      +-- FE NAME

What is the point of having this one operation called SHOW just
for this? Is it an operation at all given its position in the hierachy?
PENAME may have been a better name.

In the diagram: 
+ LFB Instance ID  and LFB Class ID 
should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are
going.
+ Type = operation, using the word "type" is confusing since it is also
used in the main header. I dont think we can avoid using the word type
in TLVs; my suggestion is we consider changing the main header type to 
"command". Thoughts? It is a command after all.
+ comment on SHOW applies here as well

+ "HBI will be exchanged with the CE using this LFB" ???

-6.2.2  Association Setup Response Message

In the diagram: 
+ LFB Instance ID  and LFB Class ID 
should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are
going.
+         
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        Type = operation Show  |               Length          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
~                   FE Object LFB (optional)                    ~
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

What is that?

+ "HBI will be exchanged with the CE using this LFB" ???

+ Type = T.reason  ?

This brings up that we need the following speacial TLVs.

FORCES_REASON, FORCES_RESULT, FORCES_NAME.

cheers,
jamal

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