Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] Protocol Messages: topic 3 & 4a

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:48:25 -0700

Hi Weiming,

At this point, I would like to hear from Avri, Ram, others on what they
think. Jamal has provided a lot of good clarification and I think Jamal
and myself are on the same page. I am confused about your arguments,
since there doesn't seem to be a clear design philosophy. On one hand
you would like to see more messages with CE/FE prefix for Join, Leave,
etc. On the other hand, you want to see less messages, e.g. remove
Reg/de-reg ?? Not sure what the motivation is here, it doesn't make
sense to me atleast.

Another thing which is not helpful, is to keep going back and trying to
compare GRMP, FACT, Netlink-2. We should talk about our experiences, but
if we keep going back to specifics in these drafts it will be difficult
to achieve our goal of defining a common protocol as soon as we would
like. We will always be biased by what we did, and it makes things more
difficult. Note I am Not trying to accuse you here, but this has been my
observation.

I am still hopeful, like Jamal, that we can have an early interop by end
of this year. Hope we share this goal.

regards
Hormuzd

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

Leave - This message can be used by an FE or CE to leave an association

[Weiming] As mentioned above, If we decide to use 'Src.ID' and 'Dest.ID'
fields
instead of 'FEid' and 'CEid' field in the header and let FEid and CEid
universally defined, we then only need one message, or else, we may need
'FE
leave' and 'CE leave', two msgs.
[/Weiming]
[HK] See Jamal's email on this, direction is good enough for this. The
only time that we need Src, Dest ID is if we want to allow messages
between Ces (CE-to-CE) messages in the future.

[Weiming Re] I don't think so. You may know Jamal's approach is
different from
pure CEid and FEid in that, the Src ID field can either be CEid and
FEid, just
the same as IP address for IP protocol.

[HK] Yes, and I am fine with that...Pls see my emails.

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

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 00:57:09 +0800

Hi Hormuzd,

Ok, then, following compromise scheme may be acceptable to me, and should let it
as our initials and open for changes if we enconter some difficulty when we
actually begin writing  the text:

1.  Syncronization msg
    - for FE join, Leave, CE join, leave
2. Query / Query resp msg
    - include to query the capability
3. Config / Config resp msg

4. State Maintenance msg

5. Event Notification msg

6. Redirect msg

We do not need to categorize them.

Best regards,
Weiming