Subject: Re: [nwcrg] Packet fields

From: Victor Firoiu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:21:02 -0500

Thanks, Vincent. I think we can do both. I agree that the building blocks
are the way to approach the architecture, and was generally agreed at our
last meeting.

Here I wanted to get a level set of the information that has been used in
practice so far, so that we can anchor our architecture in reality.

I'd like to strike a balance and have both a principled approach, and some
simple realization(s) (as subsets of these BBs) that can be practical and
useful in the near future.

Cedric's classification is a good idea, I'll try to put it in some
systematic form so we can comment.

Victor

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Vincent Roca <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> A few comments…
>
> It’s certainly useful to have an idea of what is being used by existing
> solutions.
> However it also adds complexity since we merge everything together, whereas
> parts of it are for very specific use-cases.
>
> If we want to follow a Building Block approach (i.e. « divide to conquer
> »), we’d
> better (1) classify the pieces of information needed according to the BB
> they belong
> to, as Cedric began to do for instance, and (2) leave some tricky details
> related to
> a very specific BB for the future, while specifying this BB.
>
> In any case I prefer to focus on « signaling mechanisms » in general
> rather than
> « header fields » which are just one aspect of signaling.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   Vincent