Subject: Re: [issue 7] HB msg

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:40:07 -0800

Jamal,

You definitely have a different opinion on this from what we have in the
draft and as I said you can reopen this one as a separate issue, if you
wish.

Regarding Robert's email, here is the part that summarizes the
discussion well...

- The heartbeat message is currently not "targeted" at the FE protocol
  LFB. It is an exception to the rule. The reasoning was to keep such
  messages as short and simple as possible. Basically, you have the
  choice between a heartbeat to look like this:
        	
  main hdr (eg type = heartbeat)
                  |
                  |
                  +--- T = LFBselect
                       |
                       +-- LFBCLASSID = FE Protocol LFB Class (=0x01)
                       |
                       |
                       +-- LFBInstance = FE Protocol LFB Instance(=0x01)
  or like this:
        	
  main hdr (eg type = heartbeat)
  The difference is only 6-8 bytes (I don't remember what was the final
  consensus for the T in the TLV). But as the values in the LFBSelect
  TLV must ALWAYS be 0x01 and 0x01 (we have statically defined the class
  and instance ID of the FE protocol LFB), it is a waste to transmit
  them. And if you do, then someone might use wrong values and then you
  have to decide how to deal with such cases.
        	
  Regards,
  -Robert

This explains all the rationale. IMHO at this time, I don't see any
point of spending too much time in debating this. If anyone else has an
opinion on this, let us know ?

Regards,
Hormuzd 

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim

>
> [HK] Actually this is a separate issue (HB msg) in my opinion, my
> original issue has been resolved as I said in my comment above. The HB
> msgs has been well discussed by the protocol team and the consensus is
> already reflected in the draft since rev-00. If you want to reopen
this,
> you can do that...just call it a different issue... #9, for eg.

Do you agree with Roberts view below in which he states the heartbeat
going to the FE protocol Object? If yes, that would be fine for me to
move on since LFBselector would have to exist (even if the CE protocol
object is not used) and there would be a consistent grammar.

cheers,
jamal

PS:- Note in the text you quoted my contention is that i dont see
anything speacial to desire a "heartbeat to a FE or CE" - since all we
have to do is direct it to some LFB - I argue in that text that
heartbeats may be directed at other LFBs other than the FE protocol
object - to which there is disagreement from Robert and Ram. I dont wish
to bring that discussion up, at least not at this stage. And if we agree
targeting an LFBselector, it wouldnt matter anyways.

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 08:03:02 -0500

On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 17:40, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:
> draft

Why would we be discussing it otherwise???
my recollection is _you_ put it in the draft with intent we will revisit
and disscuss.
I sent the attached document back in October to accelerate the changes
to the original draft. Look at section 6.7 - I gave you a clear
opportunity to discuss this and didnt impose. Now its in the draft, is
the implication that it no longer holds?? Sounds almost like a lawyer
sneaking in fine print.

> and as I said you can reopen this one as a separate issue, if you
> wish.

if you are unhappy with the way issue #4 is worded i could modify it.
But that was my first review of section 6.7 after i sent the attached
document.

> Regarding Robert's email, here is the part that summarizes the

Robert seems to be tied elsewhere - but anyone else with an opinion
please speak up (and when Robert becomes loose, speak up).

We have lost track of what this issue is in this long thread;
If people dont follow, we could restate our positions.

cheers,
jamal