Subject: Re: [issue1] Feedback: Section 6.2

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:12:14 -0800

On issue 1, its mostly editorial changes in my opinion.
See some of my comments below..

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

More:
In the diagram: 
+ LFB Instance ID  and LFB Class ID 
should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are
going. [Yes, we could have LFBInstance = 0x1 in the figure]

+ Type = operation, using the word "type" is confusing since it is also
used in the main header. I dont think we can avoid using the word type
in TLVs; my suggestion is we consider changing the main header type to 
"command". Thoughts? It is a command after all. 
[Sounds good...will you send a note to Avri to change Message Type to
Message command in main header ?]

+ comment on SHOW applies here as well [will do]

+ "HBI will be exchanged with the CE using this LFB" ??? 
[yes, HBI is part of the FE object LFB]
+ Length should specify what length is covered by the TLV.

-6.2.2  Association Setup Response Message

In the diagram: 
+ LFB Instance ID  and LFB Class ID 
should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are
going.
+         
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|        Type = operation Show  |               Length          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
~                   FE Object LFB (optional)                    ~
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

What is that?

+ "HBI will be exchanged with the CE using this LFB" ??? [HBI is part of
the LFB]

+ Type = T.reason  ? [It would be good if this could be part of the LFB
operation as well..let me know your thoughts?]

This brings up that we need the following speacial TLVs.

FORCES_REASON, FORCES_RESULT, FORCES_NAME.

[HK] I think we should try to avoid this. If we can convey the same info
using FE object LFBs then that approach should be used...I am sure you
will agree. Thus no changes to the protocol grammar are needed. The
Result can be conveyed as part of the Operation TLV inside LFB TLV as in
the case of Config messages.

Hormuzd

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:15:26 -0500

> going. [Yes, we could have LFBInstance = 0x1 in the figure]

Should be more readable i believe.
How are we keeping track of this? Avri, you awake?

> + comment on SHOW applies here as well [will do]

Refer to my comment to Joel on this. We may not need a SHO command just
so we can do this.

> [yes, HBI is part of the FE object LFB]

You mean FE _protocol_ object? In which case that HBI should go.

> should those just be set to 0x1? We already know thats where they are

Refer to comment above - Protocol object is more like it.

> will agree.

I do.

>  Thus no changes to the protocol grammar are needed. The

Ok, agreed.

cheers,
jamal