Subject: Re: [issue40] BLKINFO

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:57:23 +0200

I just re-read the relevant thread à propos BLOCK selector. It seems 
that besides Jamal and myself, nobody else declared whether the proposal 
(repeated below) would be satisfactory and should be included in the 
draft. Please let us know.
Regards,
-Robert

 From the thread titled "2005 Teleconf minutes (BLOCK semantics, etc)":

As an alternative, couldn't we just add a flag to the BLOCK selector to 
distinguish the two cases ?

- BLOCK REPLICATE, with only the all-to-all semantic
- BLOCK LIST, with only the one-to-one semantic.

So while processing a ForCES message, one does not have to infer the 
meaning of BLOCK based on the content (is it all-to-all or one-to-one). 
Instead the flag will tell immediately.

Avri Doria wrote:

>New submission from Avri Doria <[email-masked]>:
>
>*  NOTE! NOTE! There is a selector known as BLKINFO that is left
>         out of this doc for now that will be revisted later.  BLKINFO
>         is defined as:
>      *  SELECTOR := KEYINFO-TLV / BLOCK-SELECTION-TLV BLKINFO TLV :=
>         [BLK_RANGE_INDEX] / [BLK_LIST_INDEX] / [BLK_CNT_INDEX]  A
>         PathData can only have one selector either a KEYINFO TLV or a
>         BLKINFO TLV (i.e not both).
>
>Revisit before PS or after?
>
>----------
>category: Editorial
>draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
>messages: 58
>nosy: avri
>priority: May fix
>status: No discussion
>title: BLKINFO
>
>___________________________________________________
>Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
><http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue40>
>___________________________________________________
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Dr. Robert R. Haas
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
phone +41-44-724-8698  fax +41-44-724-8578  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha