Subject: Re: Issue Resolution - Issue #1: Feedback, protocol section 6.2

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:25:42 -0800

Weiming,

Thanks for the response! Pls see my comments below...

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Wang,Weiming

1. I see the LFBclass ID and InstanceID in the Association
Setup/Teardown
messages really redundant here. We know we do this is try to keep the
consistency of LFB targeted message format, but my view is it seems not
so
valuable to sacrifice to keep this consistency. The same question is
actually
firstly from the Heartbeat message. I remembered we had a long
discussion on the
necessity for a specific HB message. The conclusion reached was we
needed it
because we then can take a specific very bit-saved format for it ( only
with the
message header for the message). 
[HK] Yes that is correct, I am glad you recall the discussion :) 
We didn't combine HB msg with events because we saw it as an exception.

2. Taking the thought that we don't try to keep the LFB target
structure,  I
think the Association Setup/Teardown messages can be simplified much.
Note that
some of the parameters related to the Setup can be accessed by CE later
based on
general LFB targeting(to FE protocol object or FE object) operations
after the
association is setup, while let the Setup  message only do setup.
[HK] If I understand you correctly, you would like to see an exception
for Association Setup/Teardown msgs as well ? Could you draw your
proposed protocol messages ? That would make it more clear. I thought
Jamal also wanted an exception based on his comments on issue 1
(FORCES_REASON, FORCES_RESULT, FORCES_NAME), but not sure about this.

One comment to the suggestion to change 'Message Type' to 'Command' is I
am not
sure if it also applies to Event message or HB message well. One more
thing is
it seems we have already be accustomed to call protocol messages as
'Messages'
instead of 'Commands'.
[HK] I am fine either ways on this..its just a terminology issue.

Regards
Hormuzd

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:33:26 -0500

> We didn't combine HB msg with events because we saw it as an exception.

That discussion happened before draft zero went out. The issue with
heartbeats was whether there was any other LFB that could receive
heartbeats at all - and there didnt seem to be any. 
The messages lay out has changed _totaly_ since. 
Before then we had no concept of saying everything goes to an LFB - that
view came later after San Diego.

> (FORCES_REASON, FORCES_RESULT, FORCES_NAME), but not sure about this.

The FORCES_REASON, FORCES_RESULT, FORCES_NAME etc seemed valid then -
they are obsolete now - so just ignore them. I dont agree that you save
anything worthful by leaving out the LFBSelector. You loose in
consistency/elegance and you have to write more code.

> [HK] I am fine either ways on this..its just a terminology issue.

Should apply to Events as well - but i am indifferent as well. 

cheers,
jamal