Subject: Re: [issue54] correlator in the PL message header

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:01:35 -0700

Jamal, 

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim

The TML sequence number is a transport level one and really has nothing
to do with PL level. A PL level sequence could in fact be multiple
transport level sequence numbers. 

[HK] I did not see any reason from you regarding why to retain the SN,
just that we should do it. We need to have a good technical reasons in
the draft for the different protocol fields.

I did see a good technical reason from Weiming for the SN,
1. For messages like Packet redirect messages,  transport order of which
may not
strictly required, but the sequence of the redirected packets still make
sense to
the applications of the packets.

If this is the case, I would vote for having both SN & Correlator in the
header.
So we can close this issue, I guess...unless there are any other
concerns.

regards
Hormuzd

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:15:12 -0400

> the draft for the different protocol fields.

Are you sure you read my email, Hormuzd?;->
I quoted Joels email because it gave a very good summary

> So we can close this issue, I guess...unless there are any other

Lets wait for Weiming to respond and close it i think.

cheers,
jamal