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

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:29:48 -0700

Yes, a Correlator is useful and currently we have been using the
Sequence number as correlator. I don't see any other use of the Sequence
number since reliability is provided by the TML. I think we should
change Sequence number to correlator in the draft and update the
description accordingly unless there is some use for a sequence number.

BTW, issue 47 looks like the same one...we should close one of these
issues.

regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Wang,Weiming
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:12 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [FORCES] [issue54] correlator in the PL message header

Robert,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haas" <[email-masked]>

New submission from Robert Haas <[email-masked]>:

Adding a correlator seems useful: response messages can be matched to
the
request messages even if pipelining and reordering occurs.
It seems that some are currently using the sequence number as a
correlator:
this can be dangerous, and not suitable for event notifications messages
(nothing to correlate with).
[Weiming] I'm not sure if you mean to use the SN as a correlator is to
let the
response have the same SN as the sender.  If so, I cannot follow well
why it is
dangerous and not suit for event notifications.  Could you clarify this
more?

Thanks.
Weiming

But this introduces the risk of flooding an FE with too many commands as
there
is no windowing mechanism in place (yet).

----------
category: Technical
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 129
nosy: rha
priority: Should fix
status: No discussion
title: correlator in the PL message header

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue54>
___________________________________________________

---

From: "Wang,Weiming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:14:03 +0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>

[Weiming] I think it's too early to say the SN is only for correlation.
currently I don't think we should a hundred percent to rely on TML for thinks
like sequential ordering.   As a safer mode, I still prefer to have it as its
original  name of Sequence Number. Correlating request/reply messages should
only be one of its functions.

thanks,
Weiming

regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----

Robert,

----- Original Message -----

Thanks.
Weiming

----------
category: Technical