[Forces-protocol] RE: Protocol presentation comments
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Forces-protocol] RE: Protocol presentation comments
- To: <hadi at znyx.com>
- Subject: [Forces-protocol] RE: Protocol presentation comments
- From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi at intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:11:23 -0800
- Cc: "\(Ram Gopal \)" <ram.gopal at nokia.com>, Weiming Wang <wmwang at mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, forces-protocol at ietf.org, "Putzolu, David" <david.putzolu at intel.com>, Dong Ligang <donglg at mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Robert Haas <rha at zurich.ibm.com>
- List-archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/forces-protocol>
- List-help: <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: forces-protocol <forces-protocol.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:forces-protocol@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Sender: forces-protocol-bounces at ietf.org
- Thread-index: AcTFSN0PUkfFmj2hQdWKuuF6PHEo8wAdVDPA
- Thread-topic: Protocol presentation comments
Thanks Jamal. Yes absolutely, this is an Open resolvable issue.
Thanks
Hormuzd
P.s. If possible, pls remove the LFB on the CE side as well in the
picture.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi at znyx.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 8:10 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,
Updated so it is not as strong as it was before. Easier for me to update
as shown. Note a missing LFB on the FE side.
Maybe i should also add it as a "resolvable open issue"?
cheers,
jamal
PS:- One more update should be doable before presentation.
So anyone who has/hasnt spoken, please speak up.
On Sun, 2004-11-07 at 22:53, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:
> Thanks Jamal.
>
> One more comment on Slide 6, I think we were still going to discuss
the
> issue of "PL Termination always at LFB". Robert, you and myself had
> discussed this in the last call and you were going to send out an
email
> to discuss this one further, since we did not have a consensus (you
> might have logged it already in the issues, apologies if I missed your
> email). Therefore, I would suggest to change that text to "PL Messages
> always consists of header followed by LFB info" or "PL Messages
> configure/control LFBs". You will also have to change the figure
> accordingly.
>
> Other than this, this looks good.
>
> regards
> Hormuzd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamal Hadi Salim [mailto:hadi at znyx.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 5:51 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
>
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
Forces-protocol at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.