Subject: RE: Discussion direction WAS(IRe: [Forces-protocol] ForCES ProtocolDesign Team first task - timeline!

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:51:54 -0700

Jamal,

Lets go with this list below which you have suggested for discussion.
Also, I think HA is partially part of PL...I'll reply to your previous
text in more detail.

Regards 
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim

We need to have good talking points to drive whatever dates we are
trying to set. From this perspective, I think the list is a good
starting point. Thoughts?
Maybe a rewrite of that list to fit different categories would be
appropriate?

Heres a annotated rerun:

0) ID on the header.
1) Encoding

Above are PL specific

2) Multiple channels/connections
3) Transport: unicast/multicast/broadcast 
 { TCP, UDP, SCTP, DCCP, Direct over L2 or proprietary backplanes, TIPC}
4) Congestion control
5) Reliability
6) Security
7) High availability

Above are TML related

8) Capability exchange

Above is PL specific

9) The FEM/CEM interface

PL but more administrative than protocol. Would influence
some things in PL.

10) Support for vendor functions

PL 

11) Cross check with model draft before it is published

Administrative

12) Master Slave or peer-peer?

PL - Very important in my opinion because will influence some PL
decisions.

I dont think above is exhaustive rather a good starting point like i
pointed earlier.

cheers,
jamal

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