Subject: Re: LFB library draft-reuse of NPF FAPI library

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:02:07 -0700

Hi Joel,

One suggestion...several members of this working group, (Alistair
Munroe, John Renwick, others) including FE Model team members (Steve,
Zsolt, Ellen, Lily, Alan, others) have contributed over last several
years to define a bunch of Functional APIs (FAPI) library in the NPF
(Network Processing Forum). A lot of those are now standardized and
available as implementation agreements (IAs) to the public.

It would be wise to reuse the LFB definitions from these FAPIs, atleast
for the ones that are available. This would also chime well with our WG
charter to coordinate with other related standards groups. Ellen is
currently active in the NPF and can provide you with any more info in
this regard.

The FAPIs are available at the following website...
http://www.npforum.org/techinfo/approved-chronological.shtml

The FAPIs currently available as IAs...

IPv4 Prefix LFB and Functional API (February 2005)
Generic Classifier LFB and Functional API (December 2004)
Topology Manager Functional API (December 2004)
Messaging LFB (September 2004)
ATM Configuration Manager Functional API (March 2005)
ATM Header Generator LFB and Functional API (March 2005)
ATM Header Classifier LFB and Functional API (March 2005)

Next-Hop LFB and Functional API - should be available anytime now
(approved)
Rate Meter LFB and Functional API - should be available in sometime

Let me know if you have any questions in this regard,

Thanks
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 5:03 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [FORCES] LFB library draft

There were descriptions for several LFBs.  None of them were 
definitions.  Some of them were wrong.  Some were probably the wrong 
thing.  Some were right.
I would recommend that rather than going back and digging those out, we 
start a process to get a good set of definitions.
We will need to make a list of ones we want.
I am sure that will rapidly be larger than we can deliver.

Yours,
Joel

At 02:05 AM 7/7/2005, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:
>Joel,
>
>If I remember correctly the original FE Model draft that Lily was
>editing did have a bunch of LFB definitions, an initial LFB library of
>sorts. The plan was to move this content to a different draft and add
>more details to it.
>
>Do you have the starting draft with the content from the original FE
>Model draft? That would be a good starting point and then the
WG/authors
>can start refining the content...but a starting draft would be helpful.
>
>Let me know if I am off track here,
>
>Thanks
>Hormuzd
>
>-----Original Message-----
>This relates to a larger question for the list...
>We NEED an LFB library.
>Please!
>To do this, we need folks to actually write definitions of LFBs.
>(I think we have an editor who is likely to be willing to pull things
>together.  At least I hope so.)
>There are a lot of LFBs that need writing.
>If this WG doesn't start producing them, it won't happen.
>
>
>Yours,
>Joel

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:36:07 -0400

These FAPI definitions sound like good starting points for defining the LFBs.
I am not sure we will have separate configuration manager LFBs, given the 
way things are working.  But we can see once we have some proposed definitions.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 23:54:51 -0400

I am glad you used  the term "starting" point as opposed to "reusing",
Joel. Lets not shoot ourselves in the big toe just so the NPF APIs can
look as if they are being endorsed by the IETF.

Didnt we go over this discussion several times already over the last
year or so? 

cheers,
jamal