Subject: RE: PL<-->TML WAS(Re: [Forces-protocol] topic 7: HA

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:24:44 -0700

Jamal,

Let me know after you have read the GSMP RFCs. I think we both have very
similar goals in mind but slightly different approaches to achieve it.
As I said, I am not opposed to APIs or interfaces, I just don't think it
needs to be standardized...at most we can have them as Implementation
Notes in the Appendix if that is something everyone thinks would be
valuable.

Anyways I have said enough on this topic, I would like to hear from
Weiming, Avri and others about their views on this topic... ?

Regards
Hormuzd

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

> The reason for separating the PL and TML was 2 fold, 1. to allow fast
> progress on both in parallel, 2. to allow defining multiple TMLs for
> different interconnects. If we start defining interfaces, my fear is
> that we defeat the 1st reason. Also, unless you think that separate
> vendors will be implementing TMLs and PLs, there is no need to
> standardize the interface. Am I missing something here ?

I think theres possibilities that there will be other people who will
write only the TML (TIPC being an example). If TIPC adhered to some
interface then i should be able to "plug" into my implementation using a
binary from Jon.
I do understand defining such an API/protocol is making things more
complex, i just dont want to look the other way just because of such
a reason.

cheers,
jamal

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

---

From: "Weiming Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:31:07 +0800

Hi Jamal,

I agree APIs are very useful for customers with their ForCES system design,
especially I think they are good for CE side design, but I also feel it may be
not the very time to standardize it currently in the ForCES protocol document.
Maybe it can be considered as a specific Informational document later,  just
like others do.

For those TML requirements you listed currently, I think we can just define FE
attributes for TML policies (like TML reliability policy, TML link mang. policy,
TML security policy, etc) and some metadata (such as for priority)  to meet
them.  I think it's better currently to treat the TML as a blackbox,  though
some of the grey part in the box always looks so attractive.

I also agree to start with the header discussion first.

Cheers,
Weiming

----- Original Message -----
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 4:24 AM
Subject: RE: PL<-->TML WAS(Re: [Forces-protocol] topic 7: HA

Jamal,

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----

cheers,
jamal