Subject: RE: [Forces-protocol] topic 7: HA

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:35:43 -0700

Weiming,

I agree with most of your comments below..

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

I have some ideas on the TML of its functions like HA, which I'm not
sure if the
same as what you think. Let's just discuss it:

1) The interaction mode between PL and TML
Although I agree with you that TML itself controls the connections with
their
state, I think such control should be under the control of PL as well as
pre-association protocol. On the whole, I think TML should work in a
passive
mode, with its intelligence limited to a perceivable scope by PL or PAP.
As
such, my idea is that the interaction between the PL and TML may proceed
via two
items:

a) PL controls TML via some TML setup attributes, which may be from CE
to FE via
ForCES protocol or directly inside CE from PL to TML.
b) TML may trigger some event reports to PL, which are at FE side as a
kind of
FE events.

Then, what we need to discuss is just what attributes and events
(actually apear
as FE attributes and FE events at FE side) are needed and how they are
defined
in PL. This actually relates to the discussion of how much the TML
should have
the intelligence, and which is better, more or less.

Coming back to the HA, I think we then can reduce our discussion on what
kind of
FE attributes and FE events are needed for HA, and among them, what are
to be
transmitted to TML(as you said, are transparent to PL) and what are
needed to
take functions within the PL.

[HK] Completely agree, I think this is a good time to start some
discussion around protocol messages. We can then figure out what
messages will be needed for HA.

Regards
Hormuzd

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