Subject: Re: Section 6.2.2, protocol scenarios etc.

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:22:33 -0700

Jamal,

Pls see my comments below...

-----Original Message-----

Section 6.2.2 is out of sync with both reality and the Model.
The model itself has still incomplete in regards to the neighbor info
IMO; there are smaller resolvable issues like missing events etc. This
is gonna hold any attempts to go last call if not resolved.
[HK] Could you elaborate, or propose updated text and then we can
review?

There are also issues which held me back in working on the protocol
scenarios section. I dont remember the discussions earlier, but did we
agree to explicitly turn on/off FEStatus to activate/deactivate the FE?
[HK] Yes, as far as I remember. This is still supported in the FE
object, so there should be no issue here.

There is impedance mismatch between FEObject in protocol and model as
well as in the protocol scenarios. We need to resolve this. 
[HK] I did not see FE object in protocol scenarios. Anyway that section
needs to be updated if its out of sync.

Hope this helps,

Regards
Hormuzd

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:22:52 -0400

> [HK] Could you elaborate, or propose updated text and then we can

The only thing i can propose that can be done in the short while is to
remove a lot of the text from 6.2.2 and make it refer to the model
draft.
Unfortunately the problem with having disjoint things which are
incomplete (FEObject being in Model draft).
Joel, can you look at that section and cross reference the model and
perhaps even suggest what text should stay in 6.2.2?

> object, so there should be no issue here.

We need more clarity than that. There are too many variables.
So what did we agree are the states an FE can be in? 
I can only think of admin down/up and perhaps a reason why we are
in any of the two states example {"admin operation", "just booted", "CE
failure" } etc. We need to be that clear.

Joel can you also comment on this?

> needs to be updated if its out of sync.

The "things that get configured" when you modify the status of the FE
sit in the FE object.

Folks, I need closure on this. So please comment.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:14:24 -0400

>perhaps even suggest what text should stay in 6.2.2?

Suggested text:
6.2.2 FE Object LFB
The FE Object LFB Class is defined in the [MODEL] document.  It captures 
the high level properties of the FE that the CE needs to know to begin 
working with the FE.  The class ID for this LFB Class is assigned in 
[Model].  The signular instance of this class will always exist, and will 
always have instance ID 1 within its class.  It is common, although not 
mandatory, for a CE to fetch much of the attribute and capability 
information from this LFB instance when the CE begins controlling the 
operation of the FE.

Yours,
Joel

PS: I am not suggesting a section reference, because those may still 
change. It's hard enough getting those right within a document (xml2rfc 
does it nicely.)

---

From: Xiaoyi Guo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:50:45 +0800

hi, Joel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Section 6.2.2, protocol scenarios etc.

> [Model].  The signular instance of this class will always exist, and will 
I think you want to say  the singular instance ?