Subject: Re: updated section 5 - please review

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:12:52 -0700

I would prefer 2 32 bit fields, 1 SN, 1 corr with functionality clearly
called out.
This would make it much easier to implement & interoperate. There were
several other reasons for maintaining a SN which I don't want to
reiterate in this email, you can check the archive. Also, I don't buy
the 64 bit pointer argument, cause I don't know of any protocols out
there that have designed their fields to accommodate this.

However, if the decision has already been made about a single 64 bit
field, I can live with it. I am a bit surprised about rough consensus
around this at the IETF meeting, cause the rough consensus on the
mailing list was different.

Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 7:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [FORCES] updated section 5 - please review

There are two issues:
1) I thought the discussions on the list and face to face had agreed
that 
making it a single 64 bit correlator (which can be subdivided by the CE
any 
way it wants) was the rough consensus.
-- among the interesting points in favor was that this meant that the 
sender could use the correlator as a raw pointer even if it used 64 bit 
pointers.
2) The text as provided does not describe a sequence number.  It does
not 
describe somehting that solves the one open question, which is if / how
to 
get order right for multi-part transactions.

Yours,
Joel

At 01:11 AM 9/26/2005, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:
>I am not sure why the correlator field was changed to 64 bits or why
the
>sequence number was removed. I though we discussed this for several
>weeks before we reached a consensus on 2 fields, one for SN, one for
>corr...32 bits each.
>
>I don't agree with this change, atleast till I understand the reason
for
>the change at this stage.
>
>regards
>Hormuzd
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim
>Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:43 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [FORCES] updated section 5 - please review
>
>
>Includes issues caught by Joel and Weiming as well as decisions on
>correlator field.
>
>I am attaching both a diff and the updated text.
>For people who dont know how to read diffs - the most important thing
to
>observe in the diffs i send is the "+" indicates added lines and the
>"-" indicates deleted lines.
>
>cheers,
>jamal