Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] RE: PL<-->TML:: topic 1

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:29:58 -0700

Weiming,

I think I understand what you mean now. I believe what you are asking is
that, if there is a CE failure or TCP/UDP connection failure, how does
the TML deal with this...right? I think the best approach will be to let
the PL control this behavior. If the TML needs to be re-initialized and
restarted after a failure, the PL can appropriately configure/control
the TML...I don't think this belongs in the FEM, CEM. With the
handwaving approach, this can be done without explicitly defining any
procedures. However, we should add some text to the draft to explain
this.

Thanks for raising this point,
regards
Hormuzd

> 
> As for TML capability, etc we can push that as part of pre-association
> phase (FEM, CEM) or even before that (compile, integration time). I
> don't think we should be concerned with that in the PL team.
> 
> [Weiming] This is a long lasting question that I think we 
> have not resolved very
> well, that is, if we need to go back to pre-association again 
> when some TML
> change happens( link failure, CE failure, etc) during the 
> post-assoc., and how
> we go back? Or we just let the protocop layer to deal with 
> such change?
>

<Ramg>
Yes this is a better approach to push as part of CEM and FEM
configuration.
<Ramg>
 
> Cheers,
> Weiming

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

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:42:54 +0800

Hormuzd,

I just stoped at replying your last email and jumped here. Pls see more replies
inline.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>

Weiming,

I think I understand what you mean now. I believe what you are asking is
that, if there is a CE failure or TCP/UDP connection failure, how does
the TML deal with this...right?
[Weiming] Exactly.

I think the best approach will be to let
the PL control this behavior. If the TML needs to be re-initialized and
restarted after a failure, the PL can appropriately configure/control
the TML...
[Weiming] But how?

I don't think this belongs in the FEM, CEM. With the
handwaving approach, this can be done without explicitly defining any
procedures. However, we should add some text to the draft to explain
this.
[Weiming] Do you have more clear idea how handwaving approach can handle this?
If it can, I also prefer to choose handwaving approach firstly.

Thanks for raising this point,
[Weiming] Also thank you very much.

Cheers,
Weiming

<Ramg>

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Apr 2004 17:17:12 -0400

Apologies for jumping the gun. This is somewhere in the future, but
since the topic keeps coming up, we may need to address it.
First do we agree that the CEM-FEM is a "config plane"?

- the interface could be static and in this case it means a 
one shot, boot/init time parametrization example DHCP could pass the FE
its parameters.
- a always on mode: This is what i would prefer. Weiming seems to be
trying to clarify if this is what we want to do. 
We can avoid having the CEM/FEM active by introducing some built in
"reconfig" or "setup" message in the protocol. Of course at the cost
of adding a protocol complexity.

I think i am now officialy caught up with posted messages.

cheers,
jamal