Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-khosravi-forces-tcptml-01.txt

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:03:39 -0500

My thanks to the authors for this revision of their work.
This is a clear and useful description of a TML.

Two minor, related comments not so much about this document but about how 
the working group can handle one aspect of this.

It seems to me that for multiple TMLs to be useful, the upper interface 
provided by the different TMLs needs to be the same.  This prompts two 
thoughts:
     Can the authors of other TML proposals please look at the API defined 
here, and let the working group know if that looks like the interface they 
would like to provide?
     Once we get agreement, can we move that into the PL document (since 
the alternative, as far as I can tell, would be to try to duplicate it 
without change into each TML document.)

Next, could we possibly define this as a service interface rather than an 
API.  I don't think that we want to mandate that a PL must invoke these 
exact subroutine calls.  We do want to say that the PL will use these 
services from the TML, resulting in a specific and predictable on-the-wire 
sequence.

Thank you,
Joel

At 03:45 PM 2/21/2005, [email-masked] wrote:
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>
>
>         Title           : TCP/IP based TML (Transport Mapping Layer) for 
> ForCES protocol
>         Author(s)       : H. Khosravi, et al.
>         Filename        : draft-khosravi-forces-tcptml-01.txt
>         Pages           : 25
>         Date            : 2005-2-21
>
>This document defines the TCP/IP based TML (Transport Mapping Layer)
>    for the ForCES protocol. It explains the rationale for choosing the
>    transport protocols and also describes how this TML addresses all
>    the requirements described in the Forces [3] requirements and ForCES
>    protocol [7] document.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-khosravi-forces-tcptml-01.txt

---

From: Alistair Munro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:32:45 +0000

Hi All,

Just to follow up on Joel's comment, I think replacing the API by a service 
specification would be more acceptable. There are plenty of flat-earthers 
around that wouldn't let this past.

I think the only thing I am missing is TML-originated events, such as the 
forced close or reset of any of the underlying TCP sessions, e.g. following 
reboot of one or other of the parties involved or some other exception 
reported locally. These may be o/s dependent.

Regards,

Alistair

--
Alistair Munro,
Principal Engineer, U4EA Technologies Ltd.
City Point, Temple Gate, Bristol, BS1 6PL, U.K.
E-mail: [email-masked]
Tel: (work) +44-117-373-6765, (home) +44-1275-462707, (mobile)
+44-7974-922-442;
Fax: +44-117-373-6751
Web: http://www.u4eatech.com