Subject: Re: [issue22] Overview - Response Formatting

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:50:28 -0700

Jamal,

I briefly looked at this...

I don't agree with what is said about 3.xx.1 Full response in the text.
We have sent responses for all messages, its worked out very well and
its important for building a reliable product.

Also, stated...
3.xx.2.2 More than Basic
Proposed by both Weiming and Joel: Introduce RESULT TLV
to describe the results of a SET operation. The RESULT TLV will
have more data in it than what 3.2.1 is proposing.

I don't understand the difference between this and Full response above.
Also, what does RESULT TLV look like?

Thanks
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:53 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [FORCES] [issue22] Overview - Response Formatting

Can we work on closing issue #22? Knocking it off will allow us to
resolve a few outstanding issues.

Url is: http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue22

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:11:45 -0400

> its important for building a reliable product.

Parse error. What do you mean by so far you have sent response for all
messages?
(cliches like "reliable product" to justify anything technical will end
up diverting the focus of the discussion -  and I am pretty sure we dont
have marketing people participating that need to be confused with such
terms. Why not be explicit?).

I think the Full response will have to go; it's more there for
completion sake. I cant remember why it was rejected; i know it will
consume more bandwidth. It's value is in as mentioned to validate what
was sent. This is derived from looking at behaviors of certain hardware.
There is hardware out there (typically using CAMs) which returns you
both the question asked and answer to the question. 

> Also, what does RESULT TLV look like?

The RESULT TLV is still to be defined. Joel and Weiming were both
proposing it.

Thanks for taking the time to read the text.
It is amazing for a draft that we are trying to rush out to last call
not that many people are responding.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Alex Audu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:27:06 -0400

Hi All,
 
Can we make this feature configurable?  There is no doubt this feature is useful (e.g. when debuging
data connectivity problems from the application side).  It is also true you don't want to echo the 
the request all the time. That could kill your bandwidth efficiency.  So,..make it configurable; so I can
turn it on when I need it.
 
Cheers,
Alex.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:11:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [issue22] Overview - Response Formatting

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:37:52 -0400

Mr Audu alive and kicking! Welcome back.
I forgot to mention the debug feature, thanks for bringing it up.

cheers,
jamal