Subject: Re: updated section 5 - please review

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:11:48 -0700

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:12:43 -0400

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