Subject: Re: First draft of ForCES protocol from the protocol design team

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:49:55 -0700

Hi Sridhar,

Thanks a lot for your comments. I am fine with most of your suggestions,
comments below.
We (protocol team) will discuss and incorporate these changes
accordingly, in the next rev of the draft.

Regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of T. Sridhar
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 4:39 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [FORCES] First draft of ForCES protocol from the protocol
design team

Hi,

Here's my set of comments (mostly minor):

1. Section 3.1.1, near the last line - parameterization is spelt
incorrectly.

2. Section 3.2.2.1 - suggest "More details are provided in the section
on
protocol scenarios".

3. Section 3.3.1 - second paragraph - it is not clear whether message
batch
reassembly needs to take place before exectution. How does this work?
Also,
the concept of batch is introduced only in Section 3.3.3, hence the text
is
a little difficult to understand in this section.

4. Section 6.2 - the bullet items under "FE (coarse layer) information".
The
second bullet states "Inter-FE topology, that is, LFB topology" -
shouldn't
that be "Intra-FE topology"?

5. Section 6.5 - A nit - since Packet Redirect messages also involve
CE-FE
messages (which is not really a redirect) , should we look at calling it
something else, e.g. Packet Transfer message?

Thanks,
Sridhar

---

From: "Wang,Weiming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 09:07:21 +0800

Hi Sridhar,

Thank you very much for your detailed review of the draft. Pls see some replies inline.

Thanks again.

Best regards,
Weiming
 
-----Original Message-----

Hi,

3. Section 3.3.1 - second paragraph - it is not clear whether messagebatch
reassembly needs to take place before exectution. How does this work?Also,
the concept of batch is introduced only in Section 3.3.3, hence the textis
a little difficult to understand in this section.

4. Section 6.2 - the bullet items under "FE (coarse layer) information". The
second bullet states "Inter-FE topology, that is, LFB topology" -shouldn't
that be "Intra-FE topology"?

[Weiming] We also had some doubt on this at first.  But later we just realized that it may be more reasonable to the LFB topology as FE coarse layer info because it is actually the property of the whole FE rather than individual LFBs, i.e., attributes(capability) of individual LFBs may not be able to tough the whole LFB topology except to know the topology of itself to others. 

Intra-FE topology is sure belongs to the FE (coarse layer) information, and it has been listed in.
[/Weiming]

5. Section 6.5 - A nit - since Packet Redirect messages also involve CE-FE
messages (which is not really a redirect) , should we look at calling it
something else, e.g. Packet Transfer message?
[Weiming] I agree it is more like a transfer than a redirect operation, but to uniformly give a redirect name may greatly easy the construction and use of the messages, i.e., with only one type of message. And also the redirect op for CE-FE and FE-CE is quite symmetrical.
[/Weiming]

Thanks,
Sridhar