![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Ok, here goes. One more chance tommorow to cleanup. Weiming, I did not try to attack the path issue - I will wait for your response. Hopefully, you will say we are implying the same thing. cheers, jamal On Sun, 2004-11-07 at 20:17, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote: > Sounds good. Do send us a copy of your final slides. > > Thanks > Hormuzd > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi at znyx.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 3:48 AM > To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M > Cc: Robert Haas; Weiming Wang; Avri Doria; Dong Ligang; (Ram Gopal ); > forces-protocol at ietf.org; Putzolu, David > Subject: RE: Protocol presentation comments > > > Hormuzd, > Fair enough - I will remove details though i will still keep that slide > around to show progress in that arena. > Note, DCCP in the case of audu-draft is only for packet redirect. > > cheers, > jamal > > On Sun, 2004-11-07 at 13:24, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote: > > Jamal, > > > > I was specifically talking about slide 5 in which you have mentioned > > your opinions on what you think the drafts support..\.for e.g., I > don't > > think the Audu proposal is SCTP/UDP, from my reading it was SCTP/DCCP > > and my proposal is not Unicast only. We have never discussed any of > > these proposals in the protocol team and neither have these proposals > > been presented at the IETF...dont you think its inappropriate for > these > > to be discussed in our presentation before the actual TML proposals > are > > presented? > > > > If you would just mention the proposals without getting into their > > details, that would be fine. They will be presented at this meeting in > > any case. > > > > Thanks > > Hormuzd > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi at znyx.com] > > Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:25 PM > > To: Khosravi, Hormuzd M > > Cc: Robert Haas; Weiming Wang; Avri Doria; Dong Ligang; (Ram Gopal ); > > forces-protocol at ietf.org; Putzolu, David > > Subject: Re: Protocol presentation comments > > > > Hormuzd, > > > > Can you point me to exactly what you dont like about the two slides > > i put on the TML? > > More importantly point me to my "opinions" on those two slides. > > I will not remove the slides on TML - I think its a fundamental part > of > > ForCES. If you have something specific to point to, it would be > valuable > > to consider. > > > > cheers, > > jamal > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 16:37, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote: > > > Hi Jamal, > > > > > > I went thru the protocol presentation that you put together... > > > > > > One comment, you should not be presenting your opinions on the TML > > > drafts which are being presented at this meeting. This is beyond the > > > scope of the protocol draft anyways, I am not sure why you have > slides > > > on this? But it would strongly recommend against this. I don't > believe > > > these have been discussed by the protocol team in emails or > meetings. > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Hormuzd > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi at znyx.com] > > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:25 PM > > > To: Robert Haas > > > Cc: Weiming Wang; Khosravi, Hormuzd M; Avri Doria; Dong Ligang; (Ram > > > Gopal ) > > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options > > > forLFB-level multicast] > > > > > > Robert, > > > I saw your presentation. Looks fine. Apologies, havent had time to > > work > > > on the protocol one. I am trying not to have too many slides. > > > Heres a start that i will refine later. > > > I was trying to build upto a point where i could explain the > different > > > views of "path" - I will still do that if theres > > > a) view i should or b) time allows it > > > > > > cheers, > > > jamal > > > > > > > > >
Attachment:
ietf61proto.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol