Subject: Other comments on draft-ietf-iptel-pgrp-framework-00.txt:

From: "Reinaldo Penno Filho" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 11:37:51 -0200

Hi Ronald,

my comments follow

=======================================

Minor Typos...

[Page 1]

PGRP is a protocol *that* supports the exchange ....

[Page 4]

What is needed in addition to information *obtained* through normal ....

was initially proposed as an access-type protocol along the lines of
Q.931*,* a number of proposals....

[Page 5]

PGRP is even useful *in either* when using either direct, or
gatekeeper....->PGRP is even useful when using either direct, or gatekeeper

[Page 11]

...which indicates the topology server for the area. the serving topology
returns *to* confirmation... -> ...which indicates the topology server for
the area. the serving topology returns *the* confirmation... ->

[Page 18]

...which are headers that describe the state of elementswithin *the the *
same network.

Some suggestions and questions....

>>  - Can you clarify what is on the 'LIST OF ELEMENTS?'  The definitions
>> state that these are elements with wich the registrant is able to
connect.
>> What kind of connectivity are we talking about here?
>>
>
>the idea of the "list of elements" is that it contained a list of
>elements (gateways, &c.) to which a given element could establish
>communications.  so if we call the 'given element', "element_a", and
>the elements in the "list of elements", "element_b", and "element_c")
>then the topology state database entry for element_a would contain
>(element_b, element_c).  the "connectivity state" associated with each
>of these "list of elements" elements would indicate the ability of
>element_a to communicate with these elements.
>

I had to read two or three times the "List of Elements" part to get it
right. I think that it is logically correct but could be more clearly
written.....but that's my opininion....

[Page 6 and 7]

"- ELEMENT ADDRESS - this is the transport address for the element being
registered.

- ELEMENT IDENTIFIER - .... Thus, an element with interfaces on multiple
local area networks will have a different element address for each interface
but one element identifier."

What about a element interface with two (or more) transport addresses in the
same zone or in different zones?

"- ZONE IDENTIFIER - which identifies the zone.....in allowing gatekeepers
to detect *element interfaces* that are registered to more than on
gatekeeper at the same time..."

I think *element addresses* instead of *element interfaces* would be more
appropriate.

[Page 12]

2.2.2 support for redundant gatekeeper architecture

"...Both gatekeepers must also have the same LOGICAL ELEMENT IDENTIFIER
field which allows the topology server to distinguish the two gatekeepers
from a single gatekeeper (represented by a ELEMENT IDENTIFIER field) with
multiple ELEMENT ADDRESS values)."

I think that's not exactly the point. A topology server would never mistake
a gatekeeper with two element addresses with redudant gatekeepers. I think
what would happen is that the topology server *would not know* that two
gatekeepers with different element identifiers and element addresses
correspond to redundant gatekeepers.

For example, the registration of a single gatekeeper with two element
addresses

element identifier A, element address 1, type=gatekeeper
element identifier A, element address 2, type=gatekeeper

and two gatekeepers (redundant) and their corresponding element addresses

element identifier X, element address X, type=gatekeeper
element identifier Y, element address Y, type=gatekeeper

and there could be another combination with two different gatekeepers within
the same physical unit sharing the same element address.

element identifier Z, element address W, type=gatekeeper
element identifier U, element address W, type=gatekeeper

Best Regards,

_________________________________

Reinaldo Penno Filho
 Consultor  Tecnico
 SAGA Sistemas e Computadores S.A.
 tel: 55-21-5508506
 e-mail :  [email-masked]

 Universidade  Federal do Rio de Janeiro
 Nucleo de Computacao Eletronica / Instituto de  Matematica
 Grupo de Redes de Alta Velocidade
 e-mail : [email-masked]
________________________________

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno Filho" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:08:28 -0200

Hi Ronald,

my comments follow

Minor Typos...

[Page 1]

[Page 4]

[Page 5]

[Page 11]

[Page 18]

connect.

[Page 6 and 7]

[Page 12]

Best Regards,

Reinaldo Penno Filho
Consultor  Tecnico

---------