From vumip1@gmail.com Sun Dec 2 18:18:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D0521F891A for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:18:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X6XDs1yu0MFw for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:18:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C6321F891B for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:18:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d3so1852054lah.31 for ; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:18:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tE28tbJKQ0lfX3fdQpX2Xe9moGH+VWPWHREwbfGFEnw=; b=kNpobMWZO4nJM9beHqSp/kKSiRNPv1Ku538sLBdXghQID20EYaWV7Gh1UsxVEUuzCo K4ybrUi5SCvxpjV2HGTPrzgG+RQgMkLU8DpGi3+U5GquvVM9ZpulsOiSEQwQphVRwXBg cEG6e+EB+eowSUtwSBnmCBbvFU/SxU8Nrvw+bpo0smJwGle2UtphKBtUK17jQLcq1/l5 ev5iZ2GFa7brdDl3DeFL0PnwYx1KrV5a2VRyscGIb0WjZ+NIs9NreEPtPiXL1emzMLB0 2ipuPmpn+iNLrgm/V1cREXoEsR5T6RnM3l2X671OVFvTJyoIQlb/ugFdhsBVPqLNMEH/ wskw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.11.99 with SMTP id p3mr3695196lbb.73.1354501130510; Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:18:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.5.161 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Dec 2012 18:18:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <689CE984BDBA8B4CAF3EA6E2CDC5CACB01121ED546@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com> References: <689CE984BDBA8B4CAF3EA6E2CDC5CACB01121ED546@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 21:18:50 -0500 Message-ID: From: "B.Khasnabish@ieee.org" To: "Joachimpillai, Damascene M" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0402dd78bb618904cfe95e7a Cc: "forces@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [forces] Poll for interest X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 02:18:58 -0000 --f46d0402dd78bb618904cfe95e7a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello DJ, Thanks. Yes, this sounds very interesting. Can you send more details so that we can assess which ones (one-to-many or many-to-many or both in multi-CE/multi-FE environment) would be more helpful for the first phase of your implementation. Many thanks in advance. Best. Bhumip (Mobile: +1-781-752-8003) On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Joachimpillai, Damascene M < damascene.joachimpillai@verizon.com> wrote: > ** > Jamal, > > As you may already know I am interested in quite a bit of these topics. > Inter FE LFB, Multiple CE are items that are quite required and I hope to > spend time and effort on it. Please let me know how I can help > > Thanks > DJ > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From: *Jamal Hadi Salim [hadi@mojatatu.com] > *Sent: *Tuesday, November 27, 2012 09:42 PM Eastern Standard Time > *To: *forces@ietf.org > *Subject: *Re: [forces] Poll for interest > > And here's my current list of items. Please let me know if i left > your favorite item. As i said earlier i will be posting details on each > starting tommorow > > 1) ForCES Model Extension > 2) ForCES Model LFB Parallelization > 3) InterFE LFB > 4) XEM interface > 5) Northbound interface/Services definition > 6) CE CE interface > 7) Network virtualization > 8) Credential sub-system > 9) OF connection > 10) Various LFBs to parallel netmod port, IP, route yang models. > 11) Multi-CE configuring a single FE. > 12) New Simplified SCTP TML > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > > --f46d0402dd78bb618904cfe95e7a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello DJ,
=A0
Thanks. Yes, this sounds very interesting.
=A0
Can you send more details so that we can assess which
ones (one-to-many or many-to-many or both in
multi-CE/multi-FE environment) would be more helpful
for the first phase of your implementation.
=A0
Many thanks in advance.
=A0
Best.
=A0
Bhumip
(Mobile: +1-781-752-8003)

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Joachimpillai,= Damascene M <damascene.joachimpillai@verizon.com>= ; wrote:
Jamal,

As you may already know I am interested in quite a bit o= f these topics. Inter FE LFB, Multiple CE are items that are quite required= and I hope to spend time and effort on it. Please let me know how I can he= lp

Thanks
DJ



Sent with Good (www.good.com)=20



-----Original Message-----
From:=A0Jamal Hadi Sa= lim [hadi@mojatatu.c= om]
Sent:=A0Tuesday, November 27, 2012 09:42 PM Eastern Stand= ard Time
To:=A0forces@ie= tf.org
Subject:=A0Re: [forces] Poll for interest

And here's my current list of items. Please let me= know if i left
your favorite item. As i said earlier i will be posting = details on each
starting tommorow

1) ForCES Model Extension
2) ForCES Model LFB Parallelization
3) InterFE LFB
4) XEM interface5) Northbound interface/Services definition
6) CE CE interface
7) N= etwork virtualization
8) Credential sub-system
9) OF connection
10) Various LFBs to parallel netmod port, IP, route yang models.
11) Mul= ti-CE configuring a single FE.
12) New Simplified SCTP TML

cheers= ,
jamal
_______________________________________________
forces mai= ling list
forces@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces


_______________________________________________
forces mailing list<= br>forces@ietf.org=
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces




=A0=20 --f46d0402dd78bb618904cfe95e7a-- From hadi@mojatatu.com Mon Dec 3 05:05:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858AC21F873F for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:05:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qpyF2FnuqDPk for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:05:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDFE21F873E for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so1798647vbb.31 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 05:05:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=6XhrtFptJ0Of/ZZGuBAl+/n5l25wz6/xdQxkWIcQZRs=; b=KCWJu10YUsK1gQypoq/KDg+0vT9rLyhfBho6AOfx52CJCkdRDharTPIQHDiZnNrNQ1 y1ET9FmpjAesE/MOxYEuKT/o6Sx141mZnkkAphTw3LnRyB9tLznSk8B6iXEJrm0aAG5L bTARYnM6X3RlEOyQqLtLyo9T6WT4BqgJb60MPos9ZS7xAT2ny8AMVy2TjvYsUEMfassg 0DrJ+h3h4zREQVVQg6bOVN53hiPWDCU5VhdjxBaM39EwNYOZKQBfAK8POguJ6ceHwPcg Hcu3tD0JtkJq1u8PIFJL9jNertGn9TROyZQ1G0abEpSSgqi4fhbov26eUjGg9XwlFpf1 IFEw== Received: by 10.58.48.231 with SMTP id p7mr8903404ven.11.1354539926161; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 05:05:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:05:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <689CE984BDBA8B4CAF3EA6E2CDC5CACB01121ED546@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:05:05 -0500 Message-ID: To: "B.Khasnabish@ieee.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkUWz8TYdf7ZaladWasfh4/h89jiRKHaLPcww72u/6ZebOb+ZSklfTLJxE0H7TI61DAkq6P Cc: "forces@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [forces] Poll for interest X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:05:28 -0000 Can we please hold onto those discussions until we get to that point in the list? I think this is item #7 or so. cheers, jamal On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:18 PM, B.Khasnabish@ieee.org wrote: > Hello DJ, > > Thanks. Yes, this sounds very interesting. > > Can you send more details so that we can assess which > ones (one-to-many or many-to-many or both in > multi-CE/multi-FE environment) would be more helpful > for the first phase of your implementation. > > Many thanks in advance. > > Best. > > Bhumip > (Mobile: +1-781-752-8003) > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Joachimpillai, Damascene M > wrote: >> >> Jamal, >> >> As you may already know I am interested in quite a bit of these topics. >> Inter FE LFB, Multiple CE are items that are quite required and I hope to >> spend time and effort on it. Please let me know how I can help >> >> Thanks >> DJ >> >> >> >> Sent with Good (www.good.com) >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jamal Hadi Salim [hadi@mojatatu.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 09:42 PM Eastern Standard Time >> To: forces@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [forces] Poll for interest >> >> And here's my current list of items. Please let me know if i left >> your favorite item. As i said earlier i will be posting details on each >> starting tommorow >> >> 1) ForCES Model Extension >> 2) ForCES Model LFB Parallelization >> 3) InterFE LFB >> 4) XEM interface >> 5) Northbound interface/Services definition >> 6) CE CE interface >> 7) Network virtualization >> 8) Credential sub-system >> 9) OF connection >> 10) Various LFBs to parallel netmod port, IP, route yang models. >> 11) Multi-CE configuring a single FE. >> 12) New Simplified SCTP TML >> >> cheers, >> jamal >> _______________________________________________ >> forces mailing list >> forces@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> forces mailing list >> forces@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces >> > > > > From hadi@mojatatu.com Mon Dec 3 05:10:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC8621F84E6 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:10:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XsAmlH0e0gls for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B0221F846B for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so1804062vbb.31 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 05:10:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=Ttcs3SDilDi8xv+4Y+FVnqWSjqMcA90q4JjKELQD57A=; b=XS3D3PpymP26ezVY2Iuh0iUm+dqL41XDK0qluTFBJukk4/OqtuOKWygUg+FuIb5OWf zjYzY3GC+/LKHnLOXuY/nhRJWIt6YEELgtPn5/arYUq1aiVsbwpWkMsSeqf+w22FrzYs Id+KGwybHhDZzLHy2j2lvj53WwCvHeipbe1/6chqRz8v6RDABEKOaj/0Sp6yyef4C+NL tz+skLlmaKDHuqraNo6PJLdyK1PknftOGIkqofPKv/G2/RYoloFxnLKlU7spf9mrwGVG XOT+r3aE5YlRiYhVjAsK6z+f68pMySXGrRxep3qkM+Ki8YzHoP6DtzTTlFXC4D5Mlx5V rnqA== Received: by 10.58.155.99 with SMTP id vv3mr8649307veb.50.1354540213019; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 05:10:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 05:09:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:09:52 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYMGUFMeFUEc7EDD+UdEAu5BbwuHdUAWRTsrTpmWC3jhPr7eXQwy3PgiIvK4do3Ou2O0Hl Subject: [forces] item #3 InterFE LFB X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:10:14 -0000 Was presented at the meeting. Refer to: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-forces-4.pdf and draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb-00 What it is ------------ The ForCES Fi plane for FE-FE interface. Currently outside the chart. Why it is needed --------------------- Provides a much needed programmable interface between disparate Forwarding Engines for service orchestration. Please respond that you a) are interested in doing the work b) will review the work c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG d) do not think we should do this work cheers, jamal From ehalep@gmail.com Mon Dec 3 06:02:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB8C21F8593 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:02:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aL-EQNhxKyi7 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4B521F8538 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b47so1790368eek.31 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:02:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :content-language; bh=ceypiDV/4E7E/VGI3KD0meesIeZMTyR8SKiZhRVCQTc=; b=hopWMqj5fxjulF/G/RuoHADs+s9TIWNgGglw/cgCB9w6FSaw64XRksl8Q6PsbCSDZD ogCBzcyoQC+eJbWZd8bM3N/hTUGUKiQdQwG5jEGDCbTrHtqrJzDPiBpdjB4DUDFteX0b CJQkk9+Gouc7GrF3zaZDA7+4tkfgK9W/AwkVFM/97dDJ6MlmTMitUAQivw65tILYvlpw fsoDXHPjBjF82u1iqfeGMtJOHmM/l3g93AMHhGGF/4XJ96DbYAs6+daBLLAyvym3qoXr hxs8Xvt1dXc3ZjprPIJ827Og+KjHwXO1nfAvRrClFY6Uod9U2nh5oukH4jKlx/BKHkwu qCzw== Received: by 10.14.213.134 with SMTP id a6mr36560721eep.45.1354543322613; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:02:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from EhalepXPS (ppp079166007136.access.hol.gr. [79.166.7.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n7sm31442285eeo.2.2012.12.03.06.02.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:02:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" To: References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:02:00 +0200 Message-ID: <00c601cdd15e$c495b910$4dc12b30$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3RV4nt8LLPa6z/Tt2SC6Gt3Lde0AABpYyA Content-Language: el Subject: Re: [forces] item #3 InterFE LFB X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:02:05 -0000 Greetings to all, We also believe this is a much needed interface for ForCES and it should be done inside the ForCES wg. Even if we don't manage to implement as well, we will certainly review and provide comments where we can. Regards, Evangelos Haleplidis. > -----Original Message----- > From: forces-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 3:10 PM > To: forces@ietf.org > Subject: [forces] item #3 InterFE LFB > > Was presented at the meeting. Refer to: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-forces-4.pdf and > draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb-00 > > What it is > ------------ > The ForCES Fi plane for FE-FE interface. > Currently outside the chart. > > Why it is needed > --------------------- > Provides a much needed programmable interface between disparate > Forwarding Engines for service orchestration. > > Please respond that you > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces From hadi@mojatatu.com Mon Dec 3 07:12:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C35C21F87EF for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:12:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vQX-P43wMM8B for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:12:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E201221F86EF for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:12:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so1947547vbb.31 for ; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:12:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=DGlM7eXhZmdYXR8jwPeJWmcyP5WFkOPI/vMH05sb6oA=; b=c4XI85ex19Rl3SM44hZjS1nqgMlTkW7wbcpmKnoxQh2I+h3VyH8zZwrZ7kdaQx1VsN +qBBXbcaoFKLweLott1AqIuIpCSQFF1JXQj5Gna5gZ4z4ltF1FD1ygGscVFW7N/j189s tGfIO7/eDi7bkO0YiL5OdS/3ESo4ChXOVx2DFDivSuDCzo9n9Vs1aS8K2XKsmpXfBrHM EI0oAGzNUObi+quKgWq6QN3Zyj4rQz+PvvhzddHEtezNFYhQ9dAbhdtKZdiGOwFDDxE2 qBUjqWdQSfYcPw2yF+tm42TJths5K5nbGrFeorgR/P+84C6eUlVwkryd+PDmWooydUGZ pEOQ== Received: by 10.58.48.231 with SMTP id p7mr9208378ven.11.1354547567126; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:12:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 07:12:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:12:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYuSlHJql7C8Ygr/JcMDea4iz9/4tu4f8s2FCsqBMh3EQ+SPpQS9DtWT6DcawHKJnOhPeL Subject: Re: [forces] item #3 InterFE LFB X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:12:48 -0000 Not speaking as chair. For the record, our organization MUST implement this as it is a needed feature weve been asked for from more than one source. So, yes to #a-#c. cheers, jamal On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Was presented at the meeting. Refer to: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-forces-4.pdf and > draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb-00 > > What it is > ------------ > The ForCES Fi plane for FE-FE interface. > Currently outside the chart. > > Why it is needed > --------------------- > Provides a much needed programmable interface > between disparate Forwarding Engines for service > orchestration. > > Please respond that you > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal From joel@stevecrocker.com Mon Dec 3 08:52:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2EA421F85AA for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:52:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H8UPyhLq5ipw for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419A221F84F5 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [71.161.50.174] (account joel@stevecrocker.com HELO [10.10.10.104]) by execdsl.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16) with ESMTPSA id 20963211; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:55:24 +0000 Message-ID: <50BCD8CB.9040909@stevecrocker.com> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:52:27 -0500 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #3 InterFE LFB X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:52:42 -0000 It is likely my folks will impleent this, as we have several cases where Whether we implement or not, we will certainly review and contribute to the work, and think it should be done. Translation, b) and c), and maybe a). Thank you, Joel On 12/3/2012 8:09 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Was presented at the meeting. Refer to: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-forces-4.pdf and > draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb-00 > > What it is > ------------ > The ForCES Fi plane for FE-FE interface. > Currently outside the chart. > > Why it is needed > --------------------- > Provides a much needed programmable interface > between disparate Forwarding Engines for service > orchestration. > > Please respond that you > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From ashwani.kumar.a.mehra@ericsson.com Mon Dec 3 09:47:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C4521F884A for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:47:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hWnZgD3Arf8p for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:47:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C99421F889D for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 09:47:55 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f1e6d000002d2c-4d-50bce5ca6f6e Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 77.08.11564.AC5ECB05; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:47:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from 4NZN7R1.egi.ericsson.com (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:47:53 +0100 Message-ID: <50BCE5C6.5080304@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 23:17:50 +0530 From: Ashwani Mehra Organization: Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030207020705090100080307" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6pp3sCDObvkLB4+GY2m8XtrXvY HJg8liz5yeSx7dZa1gCmKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6M9RObGQv2ilVcvmvTwDhZqIuRg0NCwERi +8PkLkZOIFNM4sK99WxdjFwcQgInGSWm7tjPDuFsZpR4fegBG0gDr4C2xJ9VZiANLAIqEofX bGAHCbMJWEhcepQDEhYS0JFYen8SE4jNL2Aq8bB3FitIiahAmMT0newgYV4BQYmTM5+wgNgi AhoS3a3rwOLMAsISC+fMZAOxhQXUJR5vfsQIccFURolNp5+AzeQUCJRofH2JEaIhTGLbkUZm iL36EscaOpgmMArNQrJjFpIyCNtW4sKc61BxeYntb+dAxXUlLvyfgiK+gJFtFSN7bmJmTnq5 4SZGYLAf3PJbdwfjqXMihxilOViUxHm5kvb7CwmkJ5akZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamBk mvdDkoG3+4XT9JlWG6MqMyedqfpo8PqnwdVVExbHxMfccDAPtLe5bOMQc/PzlqtM+Y0XHQ9r ZJz8r3BLb8NB5YKT+d+fnq23Lthnzmf/rTB/3tqLu9UNJl9+336WY9el48wLN4s+XRrN/8RP I+G4VPHezfJZFU4HOSwF1I7nrvjynnfix6QMJZbijERDLeai4kQAY7LsfkQCAAA= Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] Poll for interest X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ashwani.kumar.a.mehra@ericsson.com List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:47:56 -0000 --------------030207020705090100080307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jamal, As a follow-up to our separate discussion, I would be interested in joining in for the areas (1), (3), (5), and (10), for possible contribution. regards Ashwani On 11/28/2012 08:12 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > And here's my current list of items. Please let me know if i left > your favorite item. As i said earlier i will be posting details on each > starting tommorow > > 1) ForCES Model Extension > 2) ForCES Model LFB Parallelization > 3) InterFE LFB > 4) XEM interface > 5) Northbound interface/Services definition > 6) CE CE interface > 7) Network virtualization > 8) Credential sub-system > 9) OF connection > 10) Various LFBs to parallel netmod port, IP, route yang models. > 11) Multi-CE configuring a single FE. > 12) New Simplified SCTP TML > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces --------------030207020705090100080307 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jamal,

As a follow-up to our separate discussion, I would be interested in joining in for the areas  (1), (3),  (5), and (10), for possible contribution.

regards
Ashwani
On 11/28/2012 08:12 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
And here's my current list of items. Please let me know if i left
your favorite item. As i said earlier i will be posting details on each
starting tommorow

1) ForCES Model Extension
2) ForCES Model LFB Parallelization
3) InterFE LFB
4) XEM interface
5) Northbound interface/Services definition
6) CE CE interface
7) Network virtualization
8) Credential sub-system
9) OF connection
10) Various LFBs to parallel netmod port, IP, route yang models.
11) Multi-CE configuring a single FE.
12) New Simplified SCTP TML

cheers,
jamal
_______________________________________________
forces mailing list
forces@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces


--------------030207020705090100080307-- From damascene.joachimpillai@verizon.com Mon Dec 3 10:52:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D4521F8826 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:52:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.925 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.675, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ffrOM8xtOd+V for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:52:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B50C21F881F for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:52:55 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi03.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.145]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2012 18:52:48 +0000 From: "Joachimpillai, Damascene M" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,209,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="373942832" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb04.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.191]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2012 18:52:47 +0000 Received: from FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.125.32]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.191]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:52:47 -0500 To: 'Joel' , Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:52:46 -0500 Thread-Topic: [forces] item #3 InterFE LFB Thread-Index: Ac3Rdqr/JaSmZ5LUSMWi5hKUy0WaBgAEK8ZA Message-ID: <689CE984BDBA8B4CAF3EA6E2CDC5CACB01121ED574@FHDP1LUMXC7V31.us.one.verizon.com> References: <50BCD8CB.9040909@stevecrocker.com> In-Reply-To: <50BCD8CB.9040909@stevecrocker.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "forces@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [forces] item #3 InterFE LFB X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:52:56 -0000 A, b c for me. - DJ -----Original Message----- From: forces-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Joel Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:52 AM To: Jamal Hadi Salim Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #3 InterFE LFB It is likely my folks will impleent this, as we have several cases where Wh= ether we implement or not, we will certainly review and contribute to the w= ork, and think it should be done. Translation, b) and c), and maybe a). Thank you, Joel On 12/3/2012 8:09 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Was presented at the meeting. Refer to: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-forces-4.pdf and > draft-joachimpillai-forces-interfelfb-00 > > What it is > ------------ > The ForCES Fi plane for FE-FE interface. > Currently outside the chart. > > Why it is needed > --------------------- > Provides a much needed programmable interface between disparate=20 > Forwarding Engines for service orchestration. > > Please respond that you > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > _______________________________________________ forces mailing list forces@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces From hadi@mojatatu.com Tue Dec 4 03:32:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494F521F8235 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 03:32:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vIZM3ezaLt31 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 03:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B734721F875E for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 03:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l1so4821763vba.27 for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:32:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=6u2uRrYjHlcN1GrAevbU4Em1D9BfPVNi4cZ/MH3PmFA=; b=T/c1m+bdIwEZNjighzFepaoZikuPWVuaex9cZFUFPflIP+PPJBGFpwzmmeJz1CC9nj w+MBZ7co0RTiEtf0l7kKiwHW316nANvq1VeqYHesRK24hxa9gfBE55CNdxsoJHATv7XN Y54IxWGqJeV0lCaPZIjXva8GKUxU8i1b4N6OJ3/WeDD8x32SI4nkJwQF3G1eWD5Nnvs1 NZKO9TK/By3S9vQmIRCPky/5s7lNpXV4llWggw1nnUXV5VFvfuExRJLGCJz/tc+9ioPW JwjSJWOsTxG/tj2xV/DyXbKJqvHrr28m0llZAWUUkiXaD52OQeX+870dgqB1ffRSglKK yj7A== Received: by 10.220.106.147 with SMTP id x19mr620954vco.37.1354620733077; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:32:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 03:31:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50BCE5C6.5080304@ericsson.com> References: <50BCE5C6.5080304@ericsson.com> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 06:31:51 -0500 Message-ID: To: ashwani.kumar.a.mehra@ericsson.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmb3Ygm7kyARkekTqt/nlhzUGX0eF2Siz7roFCnjdZOUKnuKm0whlu7ZplKHcCAhzzI2Jks Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] Poll for interest X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:32:14 -0000 Hi Ashwani, Noted your interest in doing work for #1 and #3. When I post 5 and 10, please respond on the list. The AD likes to see messages on the list. cheers, jamal On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Ashwani Mehra wrote: > Hi Jamal, > > As a follow-up to our separate discussion, I would be interested in joining > in for the areas (1), (3), (5), and (10), for possible contribution. > > regards > Ashwani > > On 11/28/2012 08:12 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > And here's my current list of items. Please let me know if i left > your favorite item. As i said earlier i will be posting details on each > starting tommorow > > 1) ForCES Model Extension > 2) ForCES Model LFB Parallelization > 3) InterFE LFB > 4) XEM interface > 5) Northbound interface/Services definition > 6) CE CE interface > 7) Network virtualization > 8) Credential sub-system > 9) OF connection > 10) Various LFBs to parallel netmod port, IP, route yang models. > 11) Multi-CE configuring a single FE. > 12) New Simplified SCTP TML > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > > > From hadi@mojatatu.com Wed Dec 5 04:59:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454BD21F874D for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 04:59:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KNTuvcImrZ6W for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 04:59:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE5121F86DD for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 04:59:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w11so2257237bku.31 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:59:03 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=g56nOBPS63UkWhLVCnv1bSIT+B0X3OHNS+odaVqbBz8=; b=YXBpuSTBicot3wkl7tbOjKg/HazDz8/+pemcYBFr9wO/SfhXWlFfDH7ThjvA7H++NJ nQl0awSxiWFOEXOxBgdbBRz/6SRTGQD8MG0iAk8J8Yk7bx3jlQMT7SVR/TkS47lFgg0P oAdgYix3XQTlAoMopvBPah4wewgHAUQ867l/Hlgg4PK9pd20JvtXyt2v+KzTACemnfHR swQA3iAg/9GCsGoKY59YVcDrhFuwxfjADSpsvVYMp2peCAWUY8X5tSs8oYbpCpJuup70 xOy/nQ1H9z9v3WnMj1hZpEnDym6RIgMKOvfvD1yKWMyB1qn4HhrTwO5clP9Tw6KDIDoE BZHA== Received: by 10.204.148.12 with SMTP id n12mr5275340bkv.138.1354712343417; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:59:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.116.206 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 04:58:43 -0800 (PST) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:58:43 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlnlCHao4PkN/fRT2hkFxsiWr2Ux399u0r7/LDy8gx6yo1+EW1Iu0T3wT/y9rW5tWYJtRv0 Subject: [forces] item #4 xEM Interface X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:59:05 -0000 Presented at the meeting. Refer to: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-forces-5.pdf What it is ---------- The ForCES Fc, Ff, Fl interfaces. Currently outside the charter. Why it is needed --------------------- Implementation experiences has shown that all three interfaces fit well with ForCES (they can be easily modelled). This is useful in the sense that only one protocol is needed for both management configuration and control. It could also be seen as a "hypervisor" plane for an FEs or CEs. Please respond whether you: a) are interested in doing the work b) will review the work c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG d) do not think we should do this work cheers, jamal From ehalep@ece.upatras.gr Wed Dec 5 05:01:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C10F21F8AB4 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:01:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hosO0fT79l3K for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:01:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.ece.upatras.gr (mailgate1.ece.upatras.gr [150.140.189.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B060F21F8AA2 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:01:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from EhalepXPS (150.140.255.154) by mailgate1 (Axigen) with ESMTPA id 29769C; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:13:21 +0200 From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" To: References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:01:48 +0200 Message-ID: <00cf01cdd2e8$afec3170$0fc49450$@upatras.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3S6FEwudQigvJTQW+9TayHQDMEyQAABMIg Content-Language: el Subject: Re: [forces] item #4 xEM Interface X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:01:51 -0000 Greetings to all, We are also interested in this work and do believe that this should also be done within the wg. So, a, b and c for us. Regards, Evangelos Haleplidis. > -----Original Message----- > From: forces-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:59 PM > To: forces@ietf.org > Subject: [forces] item #4 xEM Interface > > Presented at the meeting. > Refer to: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-forces-5.pdf > > What it is > ---------- > The ForCES Fc, Ff, Fl interfaces. Currently outside the charter. > > Why it is needed > --------------------- > Implementation experiences has shown that all three interfaces fit well > with ForCES (they can be easily modelled). This is useful in the sense > that only one protocol is needed for both management configuration and > control. It could also be seen as a "hypervisor" > plane for an FEs or CEs. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces From hadi@mojatatu.com Wed Dec 5 05:10:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B520A21F89AE for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:10:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GzgSjFEriAD9 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:10:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F1521F89AD for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:10:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so4699072vcb.31 for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:10:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=QfsbrcZk8J+E4kkKIfYu69LgAnID6DQSJ5tPjM+Xg2I=; b=DOVjQXKFKHMZfOLEwhINYYx6+mEI8TmFmuX4F32UhAy5oR7oc3oo+MrGdyJzcLBLy7 gr1JmZunc+CCeAIERvYT0CiIeiSsKbO1PazJ+ET6L4R7LKyjUiuVP65O/CsdXSDUEKy5 ADieLev9q8J4A+3SywQl8wqN0GPvf+3JedXib48OEygco+YWLpAaWXdCREGOwCNkn3Dy uUEZ4dmoPybr0QDcrjiUO+jN0rqqZ9a0BgzjC/s2entVNHdGpGJZu33pmoggUU90N3Xe KWHafRrH2AOKPkIFmsyuax4W8iGR9302L327KYa3gXdrz0LNhS/nWoryNOS3qTS43R66 VvdQ== Received: by 10.220.231.65 with SMTP id jp1mr14720536vcb.30.1354713046052; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:10:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:10:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 08:10:25 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk2+7sS1X6IGhcjtguESS48SXw8RgoMmyZi2nsVxKH+pNmfH+QQsv0PKzYx5vhJQ+PBsq+8 Subject: Re: [forces] item #4 xEM Interface X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:10:57 -0000 Chair hat offr: We are proceeding to implement this for the reasons i presented in the slide #4. We would love to see this be a WG item instead of proprietary from us. cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Thu Dec 6 05:58:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758ED21F873F for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:58:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PL-hIFZhEd5E for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:58:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47C321F8734 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so6584774vcb.31 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:58:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=NUvaM8Jt+95iaut/7dK49v8ue1H4uCAb1q/s54J6lUo=; b=S4mxleHOhdT8TrU4CaN3dd0+UiDobNKwnxAX3uxxNwDgJs0pNgdjFW54+sNd910OhN t4vcrAb65mUT5ModeZYPyiqP3PoYNCAnFbxpnIZ+upeaspcpB+CXRI9rmMKQH1OeqC5F WNxgwdzt39ubIycdFkeOU6TII7DU5sYFDdxinRsDJgqkKBmCaa9zHcxahyaOQdlX4PQr 2GoobEN041VnXEZiUhQTnapSu0LMNHwcTgkeuweM+VP0EZ5luLaHgHO9cWXqFbzYq60K bkNytpoDqL5mvU8xxe37u1dGc0nxJf7vJahnYNgdOJU4YJ3tV9mfiPC4gz3+eYh1hKwX 1CVQ== Received: by 10.59.6.70 with SMTP id cs6mr992735ved.60.1354802328017; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:58:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 05:58:27 -0800 (PST) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:58:27 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnF8sfx1B4is/oGay/xAm98zCACCjHCE2WiGrjp0fuMCffDFu7SXj3LhRMRQvocfvK9l1WG Subject: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:58:49 -0000 What it is ----------- A Services definition interface at the CE; meaning an LFB that resides at the "CE". Such an LFB would model a service. This lets a CE become both an "FE" on the northbound (by virtue of defining an LFB owned by the CE) and a "CE" to other FEs on the southbound... Why this is needed ----------------------- a) Allows to use ForCES for a services level interface in a formal way. The Service level definition is a natural fit for ForCEs. b) Allows for existence of proxy CEs for scaling reasons. All this is outside the charter. Please respond whether you: a) are interested in doing the work b) will review the work c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG d) do not think we should do this work cheers, jamal From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Thu Dec 6 07:12:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3AE21F85A6 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:12:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i3JNBHhO9uuD for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:12:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from snt0-omc2-s31.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc2-s31.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.106]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227EF21F855D for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:12:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from SNT132-W45 ([65.55.90.73]) by snt0-omc2-s31.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:12:12 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [60.186.183.106] X-EIP: [fzTaRB0DlL4DHOveSouedwZFmfThL1Ty] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_388ef320-dc23-454f-94f9-d3da0e375625_" From: WM Wang To: , Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:12:12 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2012 15:12:12.0770 (UTC) FILETIME=[11B46C20:01CDD3C4] Subject: Re: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:12:14 -0000 --_388ef320-dc23-454f-94f9-d3da0e375625_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My team is interested in doing the work (a)=2C and think this should be don= e in the WG (c). My team also has done some work related=2C hope to share l= ater. thanks=2C Weiming > From: hadi@mojatatu.com > Date: Thu=2C 6 Dec 2012 08:58:27 -0500 > To: forces@ietf.org > Subject: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition >=20 > What it is > ----------- > A Services definition interface at the CE=3B meaning an LFB that resides > at the "CE". Such an LFB would model a service. > This lets a CE become both an "FE" on the northbound (by virtue of > defining an LFB owned by the CE) and a "CE" to other FEs on the > southbound... >=20 > Why this is needed > ----------------------- > a) Allows to use ForCES for a services level interface in a formal way. > The Service level definition is a natural fit for ForCEs. > b) Allows for existence of proxy CEs for scaling reasons. >=20 > All this is outside the charter. >=20 > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work >=20 > cheers=2C > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces = --_388ef320-dc23-454f-94f9-d3da0e375625_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My team is interested in doing t= he work (a)=2C and think this should be done in the WG (c). My team also ha= s done some work related=2C hope to share later.

thanks=2C
Weimin= g

> From:=3B hadi@=3Bmojatatu.com
> Date:=3B Thu=2C 6 De= c 2012 08:=3B58:=3B27 -0500
> To:=3B forces@=3Bietf.org
>= Subject:=3B [=3Bforces]=3B item #=3B5 Northbound interface/Ser= vices definition
>
> What it is
> -----------
> A Services def= inition interface at the CE;=3B meaning an LFB that resides
> at the = "=3BCE"=3B. Such an LFB would model a service.
> This lets a CE be= come both an "=3BFE"=3B on the northbound (=3Bby virtue of
> de= fining an LFB owned by the CE)=3B and a "=3BCE"=3B to other FEs on= the
> southbound...
>
> Why this is needed
> ----------------= -------
> a)=3B Allows to use ForCES for a services level interface i= n a formal way.
> The Service level definition is a natural fit for ForC= Es.
> b)=3B Allows for existence of proxy CEs for scaling reasons.>
> All this is outside the charter.
>
> Please respond whether= you:=3B
> a)=3B are interested in doing the work
> b)=3B wi= ll review the work
> c)=3B find the work interesting and it should be= done in the WG
> d)=3B do not think we should do this work
>
= > cheers=2C
> jamal
> _______________________________________________=
> forces mailing list
> forces@=3Bietf.org
> https:=3B//www= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces
= --_388ef320-dc23-454f-94f9-d3da0e375625_-- From joel@stevecrocker.com Thu Dec 6 08:00:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A2021F8615 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:00:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bdWdaesI3yac for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B866021F8773 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:00:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from dummy.name; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:03:40 +0000 Message-ID: <50C0C125.5070802@stevecrocker.com> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:00:37 -0500 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:00:54 -0000 This is something we will be developing. It would be significantly better if it were standardized, rather than proprietary. It is a bit of a stretch for this WG, but I think belongs here more than anywhere else. As such, (a). Yours, Joel On 12/6/2012 8:58 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > What it is > ----------- > A Services definition interface at the CE; meaning an LFB that resides > at the "CE". Such an LFB would model a service. > This lets a CE become both an "FE" on the northbound (by virtue of > defining an LFB owned by the CE) and a "CE" to other FEs on the > southbound... > > Why this is needed > ----------------------- > a) Allows to use ForCES for a services level interface in a formal way. > The Service level definition is a natural fit for ForCEs. > b) Allows for existence of proxy CEs for scaling reasons. > > All this is outside the charter. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From ehalep@ece.upatras.gr Thu Dec 6 14:56:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E41721F8773 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:56:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9uObs3pDs9xc for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.ece.upatras.gr (mailgate1.ece.upatras.gr [150.140.189.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E5721F86B2 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:56:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from EhalepXPS (150.140.254.94) by mailgate1 (Axigen) with ESMTPA id 066C1F; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 01:07:58 +0200 From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" To: References: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 00:56:01 +0200 Message-ID: <017801cdd404$df825230$9e86f690$@upatras.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3Tu3puQKCOLe/KTMuWD8M3usRP9QASLYpg Content-Language: el Subject: Re: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:56:09 -0000 Greetings to all, We are very interested in doing this work and we do believe that this is important work and must be done in the ForCES wg. Regards, Evangelos Haleplidis. > -----Original Message----- > From: forces-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:58 PM > To: forces@ietf.org > Subject: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition > > What it is > ----------- > A Services definition interface at the CE; meaning an LFB that resides > at the "CE". Such an LFB would model a service. > This lets a CE become both an "FE" on the northbound (by virtue of > defining an LFB owned by the CE) and a "CE" to other FEs on the > southbound... > > Why this is needed > ----------------------- > a) Allows to use ForCES for a services level interface in a formal way. > The Service level definition is a natural fit for ForCEs. > b) Allows for existence of proxy CEs for scaling reasons. > > All this is outside the charter. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces From hadi@mojatatu.com Thu Dec 6 15:09:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D4321F86EA for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:09:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wwZZR8bhlu1 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:09:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7159221F86AD for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:09:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so7197619vcb.31 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:09:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Gi3EI6VqF9SeVYY2YcubUeG7dRZ5vb+mib5wyjf9BpY=; b=jyqz35wq4gZ10EuKU36XbhZdRD88QibPwyP9Tebg09WP/4aHaip9Od/zXImwwB7OBj a+C0RzzLTJtHgqqvEhaMW7zZT7a1ar3f7AZajx/OqTl7Cilm5+Q5CH3AiHn/1V2jcQAk KoKEDjIYDVedTrBb3Cl8y/cyGI5LBTu2SwzxH2ATeOA+9qzqZ956mJAkxnGcBCaeQ1gA E4XrIcuxrjWt8zELWsMnsatMPmXh6ON7ALJRzBGEJtJCW+uR4ddMz1q3QAB5ekET0V2G nLNN+QBWViiS5bg1sOPf9EgkVV9hh3EL2+17eo6666zwIi7QekUn57a2ZKQHdLxJaajs OJfQ== Received: by 10.220.231.65 with SMTP id jp1mr2584600vcb.30.1354835386645; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:09:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:09:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:09:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnVMh+GfTHhUN6fR7EsEeC7f3F709uXmuLYLdvLAQeYbFOP3Fbo0Yn67he17dlQkOmyM7yb Subject: Re: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:09:48 -0000 Chair hat off: We have implemented some parts of this already. It was a natural fit. We would love to see this done in a standardized way. cheers, jamal On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > What it is > ----------- > A Services definition interface at the CE; meaning an LFB that resides > at the "CE". Such an LFB would model a service. > This lets a CE become both an "FE" on the northbound (by virtue of > defining an LFB owned by the CE) and a "CE" to other FEs on the > southbound... > > Why this is needed > ----------------------- > a) Allows to use ForCES for a services level interface in a formal way. > The Service level definition is a natural fit for ForCEs. > b) Allows for existence of proxy CEs for scaling reasons. > > All this is outside the charter. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Thu Dec 6 15:12:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122AC21E8030 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:12:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qfLcYgjZ51Qt for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485B021E8034 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so7199302vcb.31 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:12:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=BKly2XJTqPjmm+YD9qNdXI8UpJCL2JDnJTFlBW1oO5w=; b=nhY+Ko9u2kEYUc3kQKsCh2XRfDYbNbMzFc0lc5x2p0ebcSuiSbRjVKuFnaU95G7hsc BFj2ICCgdaNLhbmcfwcsecBeNr1FA3qT61VOYi13OwFrjLgqKDuB02uP0Bwgl4M7r1Wg zkuHu38zfWYxY5S2eCd/B/Uf8v78Ax7J10lozQmCxPI3WzNSReyynxvbJBl6asLZWsHk sBfAzpWXbRMHY5QBpuDjiIyf0PiBA4izue4d4MINmMhKoom7NWDhZQAdtea9WWC+WOFM g1yXlIS+VqFs7PeC6co9H11cdgG5EogdJSS547/17PLj0ye0XJQYazlI/wTCFUtfBO4x 3cLg== Received: by 10.52.99.106 with SMTP id ep10mr2389763vdb.53.1354835530146; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:12:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:11:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50C0C125.5070802@stevecrocker.com> References: <50C0C125.5070802@stevecrocker.com> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:11:50 -0500 Message-ID: To: Joel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmXGmH75mESWE1MO9utZcQgEHfv5/AzaIXJjfFOW4p6yk8IkUZmHmPnNgaDl1+cMV1YFsAo Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:12:21 -0000 On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Joel wrote: > It is a bit of a stretch for this WG, but I think belongs here more than > anywhere else. I know there's some cross-over with I2RS - but i think the scope of this is larger than what I2RS is trying to achieve (since I2RS the service set is limited). cheers, jamal From adrian@olddog.co.uk Mon Dec 10 16:09:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D2521F86FA for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:09:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D9B2yggW6Huo for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB50E21F86F8 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBB094NI010402; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:09:04 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBB093vW010389 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:09:04 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:09:03 -0000 Message-ID: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac3XM4HVraEtwQBPSfOpULBbOaco9Q== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:09:07 -0000 Hi, I have done my usual AD review of your I-D prior to sending it forward for IETF last call. Apologies that it has taken me so long to process: it is not the shortest document, and I was not as familiar with ForCES as I might have been. The purpose of my review is to sort out any issues that might come up during IETF last call or IESG evaluation to make sure that the use of those steps is as efficient as possible, and to ensure that I can fully support the document as it goes through those stages. Set out below are a number of questions, nits, and requests for additional text. It looks to me that they will add up to the need for a new revision, so I will put the document into "Revised I-D Needed" state in the datatracker, and wait for the new revision to be posted. Of course, *all* my points are open for discussion and it may be that each can be addressed using email rather than changing the document. Thanks for your work. Adrian === Please pick up the minor nits and unresolved comments referenced in the Shepherd Write-up. --- I didn't find Figure 1 very helpful at this stage of the document with zero description. I know you want to defer detailed discussion until Section 7, but some really brief description of what the figure contains would have helped: what are the boxes? where are the inputs? where are the outputs? what is the story with IPv6 and multicast? explain there are multiple interfaces, etc., etc. --- I am really uneasy about you using an enumeration for LANSpeedType. There are three concerns: - this is not future-proofed without needing to revise the LFB - this does not cover all existing Ethernet interface types currently available (e.g., wifi, etc., etc.) - you cannot slot new values into the list and keep them well-ordered You might claim to get away with this by stating (as you do in 3.1 and 5.1) that this library only supports copper media. But I don't see how you will extend to other media. Will you introduce a whole new structure in parallel for other media? Not to mention other L2 encapsulations. None of this seems very forward-looking. --- I see that IEEEMAC is defined as a 6 byte thing which works for MAC-48 and EUI-48. How is EUI-64 handled? --- A bit odd to define the SchdDisciplineType atomic data type given that it only has one possible setting defined. --- Looking at the stats I see they use simple integer types. Indeed you don't have atomic types for counters. But I can't find anywhere in the document that talks about what happens when counters wrap or how to record a discontinuity. --- In general, I found the text in Section 4 rather hard to work with. It is either cryptic and terse, or in need of review. For example... LFBOutputSelectIndex Index for a packet to select a port instance in EtherClassifier LFB group output port to link to a downstream LFB. Possible downstream LFBs are IPv4Validator, IPv6Validator, RedirectOut, etc. ...does not parse! Then... ClassifyNoMatching There is no matching of tables in EtherClassifier LFB. ...and... MetadataNoMatching There is no matching when looking up the metadata dispatch table in BasicMetadataDispatch LFB. ...No matching what? --- In 4.4 in IPv4PrefixTableInfo, what is this all about... Reserved Reserved for future use uchar Actually, I see several similar (e.g. in VlanInputTableEntryType) If this is an extensible format (I thought it was) why do you have reserved fields? --- 5.2.2.1 This LFB performs IPv6 validation according to [RFC2460]. Defining IPv6 validation by RFC 2460 seems limited. What about the RFCs that update 2460? I note that in 5.2.1.2 for IPv4 validation you are able to point at a ForCES RFC (5812). Why isn't there an equivalent RFC for IPv6? --- Section 5.3 discusses the actual and potential implementation architectures and implies that some are more suited to this library than others. That bothers me: this whole project is supposed to be about abstraction and the abstraction is supposed to suit any (reasonable) implementation model since it is the functions of forwarding that are described, not the components of an implementation. So I think the section should not make (what I think are dubious) statements about "typical" and "usual" implementations. If it is necessary to mention implementations (which I don't think it is) you should do so in a light way and just note that this library is agnostic to the implementation model and can be applied across all implementations with recognition that the functional elements described in the LFBs might be realised in a different way in an implementation, but that the functions performed will be identical. --- Section 5.3.1 This LFB also provides facilities to support users to implement equal-cost multi-path routing (ECMP) or reverse path forwarding (RPF). However, this LFB itself does not provide ECMP or RPF. To fully implement ECMP or RPF, additional specific LFBs, like a specific ECMP LFB or an RPF LFB, will have to be defined. This work may be done in the future version of the document. I guess it won't :-) --- Section 5.3.1.2 Isn't the order of entries in IPv4PrefixTable supposed to have an implicit meaning? Maybe this has to be discussed in this section or maybe it belongs with the definition of IPv4PrefixTableType. Obviously the same issue applies to IPv6. --- Section 5.5.1.1 The second output is a singleton output port known as "ExceptionOut", which will output packets for which the data processing failed, along with an additional ExceptionID metadata to indicate what caused the exception. Currently defined exception types include: o There is no matching when looking up the metadata dispatch table. The implication here is that there are other members of ExceptionID that are also currently valid. Is that the case? if not, perhaps you could change the wording slightly. (This is a problem repeated throughout Section 5, but it only struck me when I got this far :-) But it does bring up the usual concern with a common set of return codes that are shared across a number of functions. In this case, you use ExceptionID for output from a number of different LFBs, but some values are only appropriate for some LFBs. How does an implementer understand which values are appropriate for which LFBs? Is the text in Section 5 supposed to be normative in this respect? I would have expected to find some help in the XML (maybe in the descriptive text or maybe in the normative definition), but all we have is a pointer to the atomic type itself: for example, ExceptionOut The output port outputs packets for which the data processing failed, along with an additional ExceptionID metadata to indicate what caused the exception. Arbitrary ExceptionID --- Section 7.2 The EtherEncap LFB, as described earlier, receives packets that need Ethernet L2 encapsulating. I felt that a direct pointer would be more helpful than "as described earlier". This led me on to thinking that the use case would be more interesting if it also showed how the CE actually put information into the EncapTable and how EtherEncap uses that table. --- Sections 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 Why have you chosen "Specification Required" instead of something that requires the work to be done inside the IETF? (I know that the designated expert will help to keep control of this, but I would like to understand why you feel that this should be opened up in this way. --- Sections 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 Metadata ID 0x80000000-0xFFFFFFFF Metadata IDs in this range are reserved for vendor private extensions and are the responsibility of individuals. ...etc. You should express this in RFC 5226 language (i.e., "Private Use"). Generally I don't like "Private Use" definitions in the routing area, but I suppose we can argue that this is really an management/application layer protocol and pass on that. but I am a little disappointed that there is very little discussion of the use of private values. 5.4.1.1 and 5.4.2.1 make mention, but only to suggest looking in the IANA Considerations section for more details (which do not exist). I would also have thought that there are Security implications of the use of "Private Use" values. More text, please. From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Mon Dec 10 19:45:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DC821F8593 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:45:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.42 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SCWgLsa4NOfC for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc4-s31.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s31.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AFE621F84F2 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP120 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s31.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:45:41 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [221.12.10.218] X-EIP: [1CNH7KueOEVu+uLX3fX9uZLrTC7PhZmS] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from ZJGSUIEE ([221.12.10.218]) by BLU0-SMTP120.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:45:37 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: , References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:45:44 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2012 03:45:38.0912 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC514600:01CDD751] Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:45:44 -0000 SGkgQW5kcmlhbiwgDQoNClRoYW5rcyB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggZm9yIHRoZSBBRCByZXZpZXcuIEF1dGhv cnMgd2lsbCBnaXZlIHJlc3BvbnNlIGFuZCBmaW5pc2ggdmVyc2lvbiB1cGRhdGUgYXNhcC4NCg0K dGhhbmtzLA0KV2VpbWluZw0KDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTog IkFkcmlhbiBGYXJyZWwiIDxhZHJpYW5Ab2xkZG9nLmNvLnVrPg0KDQo+IEhpLA0KPiANCj4gSSBo YXZlIGRvbmUgbXkgdXN1YWwgQUQgcmV2aWV3IG9mIHlvdXIgSS1EIHByaW9yIHRvIHNlbmRpbmcg aXQgZm9yd2FyZCANCj4gZm9yIElFVEYgbGFzdCBjYWxsLiBBcG9sb2dpZXMgdGhhdCBpdCBoYXMg dGFrZW4gbWUgc28gbG9uZyB0byBwcm9jZXNzOg0KPiBpdCBpcyBub3QgdGhlIHNob3J0ZXN0IGRv Y3VtZW50LCBhbmQgSSB3YXMgbm90IGFzIGZhbWlsaWFyIHdpdGggRm9yQ0VTDQo+IGFzIEkgbWln aHQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIHB1cnBvc2Ugb2YgbXkgcmV2aWV3IGlzIHRvIHNvcnQg b3V0IGFueSBpc3N1ZXMgdGhhdCBtaWdodCBjb21lIHVwDQo+IGR1cmluZyBJRVRGIGxhc3QgY2Fs bCBvciBJRVNHIGV2YWx1YXRpb24gdG8gbWFrZSBzdXJlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiANCj4gdGhv c2Ugc3RlcHMgaXMgYXMgZWZmaWNpZW50IGFzIHBvc3NpYmxlLCBhbmQgdG8gZW5zdXJlIHRoYXQg SSBjYW4gDQo+IGZ1bGx5IHN1cHBvcnQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGFzIGl0IGdvZXMgdGhyb3VnaCB0 aG9zZSBzdGFnZXMuDQo+IA0KPiBTZXQgb3V0IGJlbG93IGFyZSBhIG51bWJlciBvZiBxdWVzdGlv bnMsIG5pdHMsIGFuZCByZXF1ZXN0cyBmb3IgDQo+IGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgdGV4dC4gSXQgbG9va3Mg dG8gbWUgdGhhdCB0aGV5IHdpbGwgYWRkIHVwIHRvIHRoZSBuZWVkIGZvcg0KPiBhIG5ldyByZXZp c2lvbiwgc28gSSB3aWxsIHB1dCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaW50byAiUmV2aXNlZCBJLUQgTmVlZGVk Ig0KPiBzdGF0ZSBpbiB0aGUgZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIsIGFuZCB3YWl0IGZvciB0aGUgbmV3IHJldmlz aW9uIHRvIGJlIHBvc3RlZC4NCj4gDQo+IE9mIGNvdXJzZSwgKmFsbCogbXkgcG9pbnRzIGFyZSBv cGVuIGZvciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGFuZCBpdCBtYXkgYmUgdGhhdA0KPiBlYWNoIGNhbiBiZSBhZGRy ZXNzZWQgdXNpbmcgZW1haWwgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gY2hhbmdpbmcgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0KPiAN Cj4gVGhhbmtzIGZvciB5b3VyIHdvcmsuDQo+IA0KPiBBZHJpYW4NCj4gDQo+ID09PQ0KPiANCj4g UGxlYXNlIHBpY2sgdXAgdGhlIG1pbm9yIG5pdHMgYW5kIHVucmVzb2x2ZWQgY29tbWVudHMgcmVm ZXJlbmNlZCBpbiB0aGUNCj4gU2hlcGhlcmQgV3JpdGUtdXAuDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IEkg ZGlkbid0IGZpbmQgRmlndXJlIDEgdmVyeSBoZWxwZnVsIGF0IHRoaXMgc3RhZ2Ugb2YgdGhlIGRv Y3VtZW50IHdpdGgNCj4gemVybyBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbi4gSSBrbm93IHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIGRlZmVy IGRldGFpbGVkIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gdW50aWwNCj4gU2VjdGlvbiA3LCBidXQgc29tZSByZWFsbHkg YnJpZWYgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2Ygd2hhdCB0aGUgZmlndXJlIGNvbnRhaW5zDQo+IHdvdWxkIGhh dmUgaGVscGVkOiB3aGF0IGFyZSB0aGUgYm94ZXM/IHdoZXJlIGFyZSB0aGUgaW5wdXRzPyB3aGVy ZSBhcmUNCj4gdGhlIG91dHB1dHM/IHdoYXQgaXMgdGhlIHN0b3J5IHdpdGggSVB2NiBhbmQgbXVs dGljYXN0PyBleHBsYWluIHRoZXJlDQo+IGFyZSBtdWx0aXBsZSBpbnRlcmZhY2VzLCBldGMuLCBl dGMuDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IEkgYW0gcmVhbGx5IHVuZWFzeSBhYm91dCB5b3UgdXNpbmcg YW4gZW51bWVyYXRpb24gZm9yIExBTlNwZWVkVHlwZS4NCj4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIHRocmVlIGNvbmNl cm5zOg0KPiAtIHRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGZ1dHVyZS1wcm9vZmVkIHdpdGhvdXQgbmVlZGluZyB0byBy ZXZpc2UgdGhlIExGQg0KPiAtIHRoaXMgZG9lcyBub3QgY292ZXIgYWxsIGV4aXN0aW5nIEV0aGVy bmV0IGludGVyZmFjZSB0eXBlcyBjdXJyZW50bHkNCj4gIGF2YWlsYWJsZSAoZS5nLiwgd2lmaSwg ZXRjLiwgZXRjLikNCj4gLSB5b3UgY2Fubm90IHNsb3QgbmV3IHZhbHVlcyBpbnRvIHRoZSBsaXN0 IGFuZCBrZWVwIHRoZW0gd2VsbC1vcmRlcmVkDQo+IA0KPiBZb3UgbWlnaHQgY2xhaW0gdG8gZ2V0 IGF3YXkgd2l0aCB0aGlzIGJ5IHN0YXRpbmcgKGFzIHlvdSBkbyBpbiAzLjEgYW5kDQo+IDUuMSkg dGhhdCB0aGlzIGxpYnJhcnkgb25seSBzdXBwb3J0cyBjb3BwZXIgbWVkaWEuIEJ1dCBJIGRvbid0 IHNlZSBob3cNCj4geW91IHdpbGwgZXh0ZW5kIHRvIG90aGVyIG1lZGlhLiBXaWxsIHlvdSBpbnRy b2R1Y2UgYSB3aG9sZSBuZXcgc3RydWN0dXJlDQo+IGluIHBhcmFsbGVsIGZvciBvdGhlciBtZWRp YT8gTm90IHRvIG1lbnRpb24gb3RoZXIgTDIgZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlvbnMuDQo+IA0KPiBOb25lIG9m IHRoaXMgc2VlbXMgdmVyeSBmb3J3YXJkLWxvb2tpbmcuDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IEkgc2Vl IHRoYXQgSUVFRU1BQyBpcyBkZWZpbmVkIGFzIGEgNiBieXRlIHRoaW5nIHdoaWNoIHdvcmtzIGZv ciBNQUMtNDgNCj4gYW5kIEVVSS00OC4gSG93IGlzIEVVSS02NCBoYW5kbGVkPw0KPiANCj4gLS0t DQo+IA0KPiBBIGJpdCBvZGQgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZSBTY2hkRGlzY2lwbGluZVR5cGUgYXRvbWlj IGRhdGEgdHlwZSBnaXZlbiB0aGF0DQo+IGl0IG9ubHkgaGFzIG9uZSBwb3NzaWJsZSBzZXR0aW5n IGRlZmluZWQuDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IExvb2tpbmcgYXQgdGhlIHN0YXRzIEkgc2VlIHRo ZXkgdXNlIHNpbXBsZSBpbnRlZ2VyIHR5cGVzLiAgSW5kZWVkIHlvdQ0KPiBkb24ndCBoYXZlIGF0 b21pYyB0eXBlcyBmb3IgY291bnRlcnMuIEJ1dCBJIGNhbid0IGZpbmQgYW55d2hlcmUgaW4gdGhl DQo+IGRvY3VtZW50IHRoYXQgdGFsa3MgYWJvdXQgd2hhdCBoYXBwZW5zIHdoZW4gY291bnRlcnMg d3JhcCBvciBob3cgdG8NCj4gcmVjb3JkIGEgZGlzY29udGludWl0eS4NCj4gDQo+IC0tLQ0KPiAN Cj4gSW4gZ2VuZXJhbCwgSSBmb3VuZCB0aGUgPHN5bm9wc2lzPiB0ZXh0IGluIFNlY3Rpb24gNCBy YXRoZXIgaGFyZCB0bw0KPiB3b3JrIHdpdGguIEl0IGlzIGVpdGhlciBjcnlwdGljIGFuZCB0ZXJz ZSwgb3IgaW4gbmVlZCBvZiByZXZpZXcuDQo+IA0KPiBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZS4uLg0KPiANCj4gICAg ICAgICAgICAgPGNvbXBvbmVudCBjb21wb25lbnRJRD0iMyI+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxu YW1lPkxGQk91dHB1dFNlbGVjdEluZGV4PC9uYW1lPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN5bm9w c2lzPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBJbmRleCBmb3IgYSBwYWNrZXQgdG8gc2VsZWN0IGEg cG9ydCBpbnN0YW5jZSBpbg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBFdGhlckNsYXNzaWZpZXIgTEZC IGdyb3VwIG91dHB1dCBwb3J0IHRvIGxpbmsgdG8gYQ0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBkb3du c3RyZWFtIExGQi4gUG9zc2libGUgZG93bnN0cmVhbSBMRkJzIGFyZQ0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICBJUHY0VmFsaWRhdG9yLCBJUHY2VmFsaWRhdG9yLCBSZWRpcmVjdE91dCwgZXRjLg0KPiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC9zeW5vcHNpcz4NCj4gDQo+IC4uLmRvZXMgbm90IHBhcnNlIQ0KPiAN Cj4gVGhlbi4uLg0KPiANCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzcGVjaWFsVmFsdWUgdmFsdWU9IjEi Pg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8bmFtZT5DbGFzc2lmeU5vTWF0Y2hpbmc8L25hbWU+DQo+ ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzeW5vcHNpcz4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBUaGVy ZSBpcyBubyBtYXRjaGluZyBvZiB0YWJsZXMgaW4gRXRoZXJDbGFzc2lmaWVyDQo+ICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgTEZCLg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3N5bm9wc2lzPg0KPiANCj4g Li4uYW5kLi4uDQo+IA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHNwZWNpYWxWYWx1ZSB2YWx1ZT0iMTUi Pg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPG5hbWU+TWV0YWRhdGFOb01hdGNoaW5nPC9uYW1lPg0K PiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN5bm9wc2lzPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBU aGVyZSBpcyBubyBtYXRjaGluZyB3aGVuIGxvb2tpbmcgdXAgdGhlIG1ldGFkYXRhDQo+ICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGRpc3BhdGNoIHRhYmxlIGluIEJhc2ljTWV0YWRhdGFEaXNwYXRjaCBM RkIuDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3N5bm9wc2lzPg0KPiANCj4gLi4uTm8gbWF0Y2hp bmcgd2hhdD8NCj4gDQo+IC0tLQ0KPiANCj4gSW4gNC40IGluIElQdjRQcmVmaXhUYWJsZUluZm8s IHdoYXQgaXMgdGhpcyBhbGwgYWJvdXQuLi4NCj4gDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxjb21wb25lbnQg Y29tcG9uZW50SUQ9IjUiPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8bmFtZT5SZXNlcnZlZDwvbmFtZT4N Cj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN5bm9wc2lzPlJlc2VydmVkIGZvciBmdXR1cmUgdXNlPC9zeW5v cHNpcz4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHR5cGVSZWY+dWNoYXI8L3R5cGVSZWY+DQo+ICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDwvY29tcG9uZW50Pg0KPiANCj4gQWN0dWFsbHksIEkgc2VlIHNldmVyYWwgc2ltaWxh ciAoZS5nLiBpbiBWbGFuSW5wdXRUYWJsZUVudHJ5VHlwZSkNCj4gDQo+IElmIHRoaXMgaXMgYW4g ZXh0ZW5zaWJsZSBmb3JtYXQgKEkgdGhvdWdodCBpdCB3YXMpIHdoeSBkbyB5b3UgaGF2ZQ0KPiBy ZXNlcnZlZCBmaWVsZHM/DQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IDUuMi4yLjENCj4gDQo+ICAgVGhpcyBM RkIgcGVyZm9ybXMgSVB2NiB2YWxpZGF0aW9uIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byBbUkZDMjQ2MF0uDQo+IA0K PiBEZWZpbmluZyBJUHY2IHZhbGlkYXRpb24gYnkgUkZDIDI0NjAgc2VlbXMgbGltaXRlZC4gV2hh dCBhYm91dCB0aGUgUkZDcw0KPiB0aGF0IHVwZGF0ZSAyNDYwPw0KPiANCj4gSSBub3RlIHRoYXQg aW4gNS4yLjEuMiBmb3IgSVB2NCB2YWxpZGF0aW9uIHlvdSBhcmUgYWJsZSB0byBwb2ludCBhdCBh DQo+IEZvckNFUyBSRkMgKDU4MTIpLiBXaHkgaXNuJ3QgdGhlcmUgYW4gZXF1aXZhbGVudCBSRkMg Zm9yIElQdjY/DQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IFNlY3Rpb24gNS4zIGRpc2N1c3NlcyB0aGUgYWN0 dWFsIGFuZCBwb3RlbnRpYWwgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24NCj4gYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJlcyBhbmQgaW1w bGllcyB0aGF0IHNvbWUgYXJlIG1vcmUgc3VpdGVkIHRvIHRoaXMgbGlicmFyeSB0aGFuDQo+IG90 aGVycy4gVGhhdCBib3RoZXJzIG1lOiB0aGlzIHdob2xlIHByb2plY3QgaXMgc3VwcG9zZWQgdG8g YmUgYWJvdXQNCj4gYWJzdHJhY3Rpb24gYW5kIHRoZSBhYnN0cmFjdGlvbiBpcyBzdXBwb3NlZCB0 byBzdWl0IGFueSAocmVhc29uYWJsZSkNCj4gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gbW9kZWwgc2luY2UgaXQg aXMgdGhlIGZ1bmN0aW9ucyBvZiBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIHRoYXQgYXJlDQo+IGRlc2NyaWJlZCwgbm90 IHRoZSBjb21wb25lbnRzIG9mIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLg0KPiANCj4gU28gSSB0aGluayB0 aGUgc2VjdGlvbiBzaG91bGQgbm90IG1ha2UgKHdoYXQgSSB0aGluayBhcmUgZHViaW91cykNCj4g c3RhdGVtZW50cyBhYm91dCAidHlwaWNhbCIgYW5kICJ1c3VhbCIgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zLiBJ ZiBpdCBpcw0KPiBuZWNlc3NhcnkgdG8gbWVudGlvbiBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMgKHdoaWNoIEkg ZG9uJ3QgdGhpbmsgaXQgaXMpIHlvdQ0KPiBzaG91bGQgZG8gc28gaW4gYSBsaWdodCB3YXkgYW5k IGp1c3Qgbm90ZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgbGlicmFyeSBpcyBhZ25vc3RpYw0KPiB0byB0aGUgaW1wbGVt ZW50YXRpb24gbW9kZWwgYW5kIGNhbiBiZSBhcHBsaWVkIGFjcm9zcyBhbGwNCj4gaW1wbGVtZW50 YXRpb25zIHdpdGggcmVjb2duaXRpb24gdGhhdCB0aGUgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCBlbGVtZW50cyBkZXNj cmliZWQNCj4gaW4gdGhlIExGQnMgbWlnaHQgYmUgcmVhbGlzZWQgaW4gYSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgd2F5 IGluIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLA0KPiBidXQgdGhhdCB0aGUgZnVuY3Rpb25zIHBlcmZvcm1l ZCB3aWxsIGJlIGlkZW50aWNhbC4NCj4gDQo+IC0tLQ0KPiANCj4gU2VjdGlvbiA1LjMuMQ0KPiAN Cj4gICBUaGlzIExGQiBhbHNvIHByb3ZpZGVzIGZhY2lsaXRpZXMgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCB1c2VycyB0 byBpbXBsZW1lbnQNCj4gICBlcXVhbC1jb3N0IG11bHRpLXBhdGggcm91dGluZyAoRUNNUCkgb3Ig cmV2ZXJzZSBwYXRoIGZvcndhcmRpbmcNCj4gICAoUlBGKS4gIEhvd2V2ZXIsIHRoaXMgTEZCIGl0 c2VsZiBkb2VzIG5vdCBwcm92aWRlIEVDTVAgb3IgUlBGLiAgVG8NCj4gICBmdWxseSBpbXBsZW1l bnQgRUNNUCBvciBSUEYsIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgc3BlY2lmaWMgTEZCcywgbGlrZSBhDQo+ICAgc3Bl Y2lmaWMgRUNNUCBMRkIgb3IgYW4gUlBGIExGQiwgd2lsbCBoYXZlIHRvIGJlIGRlZmluZWQuIFRo aXMgd29yaw0KPiAgIG1heSBiZSBkb25lIGluIHRoZSBmdXR1cmUgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9j dW1lbnQuDQo+IA0KPiBJIGd1ZXNzIGl0IHdvbid0IDotKQ0KPiANCj4gLS0tDQo+IA0KPiBTZWN0 aW9uIDUuMy4xLjINCj4gDQo+IElzbid0IHRoZSBvcmRlciBvZiBlbnRyaWVzIGluIElQdjRQcmVm aXhUYWJsZSBzdXBwb3NlZCB0byBoYXZlIGFuDQo+IGltcGxpY2l0IG1lYW5pbmc/IE1heWJlIHRo aXMgaGFzIHRvIGJlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIHNlY3Rpb24gb3INCj4gbWF5YmUgaXQgYmVs b25ncyB3aXRoIHRoZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIElQdjRQcmVmaXhUYWJsZVR5cGUuDQo+IA0KPiBP YnZpb3VzbHkgdGhlIHNhbWUgaXNzdWUgYXBwbGllcyB0byBJUHY2Lg0KPiANCj4gLS0tDQo+IA0K PiBTZWN0aW9uIDUuNS4xLjENCj4gDQo+ICAgVGhlIHNlY29uZCBvdXRwdXQgaXMgYSBzaW5nbGV0 b24gb3V0cHV0IHBvcnQga25vd24gYXMgIkV4Y2VwdGlvbk91dCIsDQo+ICAgd2hpY2ggd2lsbCBv dXRwdXQgcGFja2V0cyBmb3Igd2hpY2ggdGhlIGRhdGEgcHJvY2Vzc2luZyBmYWlsZWQsIGFsb25n DQo+ICAgd2l0aCBhbiBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIEV4Y2VwdGlvbklEIG1ldGFkYXRhIHRvIGluZGljYXRl IHdoYXQgY2F1c2VkIHRoZQ0KPiAgIGV4Y2VwdGlvbi4gIEN1cnJlbnRseSBkZWZpbmVkIGV4Y2Vw dGlvbiB0eXBlcyBpbmNsdWRlOg0KPiANCj4gICBvICBUaGVyZSBpcyBubyBtYXRjaGluZyB3aGVu IGxvb2tpbmcgdXAgdGhlIG1ldGFkYXRhIGRpc3BhdGNoIHRhYmxlLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIGltcGxp Y2F0aW9uIGhlcmUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgb3RoZXIgbWVtYmVycyBvZiBFeGNlcHRpb25J RCB0aGF0DQo+IGFyZSBhbHNvIGN1cnJlbnRseSB2YWxpZC4gIElzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNhc2U/IGlm IG5vdCwgcGVyaGFwcyB5b3UgY291bGQNCj4gY2hhbmdlIHRoZSB3b3JkaW5nIHNsaWdodGx5Lg0K PiANCj4gKFRoaXMgaXMgYSBwcm9ibGVtIHJlcGVhdGVkIHRocm91Z2hvdXQgU2VjdGlvbiA1LCBi dXQgaXQgb25seSBzdHJ1Y2sgbWUNCj4gd2hlbiBJIGdvdCB0aGlzIGZhciA6LSkNCj4gDQo+IEJ1 dCBpdCBkb2VzIGJyaW5nIHVwIHRoZSB1c3VhbCBjb25jZXJuIHdpdGggYSBjb21tb24gc2V0IG9m IHJldHVybiBjb2Rlcw0KPiB0aGF0IGFyZSBzaGFyZWQgYWNyb3NzIGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGZ1bmN0 aW9ucy4gSW4gdGhpcyBjYXNlLCB5b3UgdXNlDQo+IEV4Y2VwdGlvbklEIGZvciBvdXRwdXQgZnJv bSBhIG51bWJlciBvZiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgTEZCcywgYnV0IHNvbWUgdmFsdWVzDQo+IGFyZSBvbmx5 IGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIGZvciBzb21lIExGQnMuIEhvdyBkb2VzIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGVyIHVuZGVy c3RhbmQNCj4gd2hpY2ggdmFsdWVzIGFyZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBmb3Igd2hpY2ggTEZCcz8gSXMg dGhlIHRleHQgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA1DQo+IHN1cHBvc2VkIHRvIGJlIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBpbiB0aGlz IHJlc3BlY3Q/IEkgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBmaW5kDQo+IHNvbWUgaGVscCBpbiB0 aGUgWE1MIChtYXliZSBpbiB0aGUgZGVzY3JpcHRpdmUgdGV4dCBvciBtYXliZSBpbiB0aGUNCj4g bm9ybWF0aXZlIGRlZmluaXRpb24pLCBidXQgYWxsIHdlIGhhdmUgaXMgYSBwb2ludGVyIHRvIHRo ZSBhdG9taWMgdHlwZQ0KPiBpdHNlbGY6IGZvciBleGFtcGxlLA0KPiANCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAg PG91dHB1dFBvcnQgZ3JvdXA9ImZhbHNlIj4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPG5hbWU+RXhjZXB0 aW9uT3V0PC9uYW1lPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8c3lub3BzaXM+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgVGhlIG91dHB1dCBwb3J0IG91dHB1dHMgcGFja2V0cyBmb3Igd2hpY2ggdGhlIGRhdGEN Cj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBwcm9jZXNzaW5nIGZhaWxlZCwgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBhbiBhZGRp dGlvbmFsDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRXhjZXB0aW9uSUQgbWV0YWRhdGEgdG8gaW5kaWNh dGUgd2hhdCBjYXVzZWQgdGhlDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgZXhjZXB0aW9uLg0KPiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICA8L3N5bm9wc2lzPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8cHJvZHVjdD4NCj4gICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPGZyYW1lUHJvZHVjZWQ+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxy ZWY+QXJiaXRyYXJ5PC9yZWY+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvZnJhbWVQcm9kdWNlZD4N Cj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPG1ldGFkYXRhUHJvZHVjZWQ+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDxyZWY+RXhjZXB0aW9uSUQ8L3JlZj4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC9tZXRh ZGF0YVByb2R1Y2VkPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3Byb2R1Y3Q+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAg IDwvb3V0cHV0UG9ydD4NCj4gDQo+IC0tLQ0KPiANCj4gU2VjdGlvbiA3LjINCj4gDQo+ICAgVGhl IEV0aGVyRW5jYXAgTEZCLCBhcyBkZXNjcmliZWQgZWFybGllciwgcmVjZWl2ZXMgcGFja2V0cyB0 aGF0IG5lZWQNCj4gICBFdGhlcm5ldCBMMiBlbmNhcHN1bGF0aW5nLg0KPiANCj4gSSBmZWx0IHRo YXQgYSBkaXJlY3QgcG9pbnRlciB3b3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIGhlbHBmdWwgdGhhbiAiYXMgZGVzY3Jp YmVkDQo+IGVhcmxpZXIiLg0KPiANCj4gVGhpcyBsZWQgbWUgb24gdG8gdGhpbmtpbmcgdGhhdCB0 aGUgdXNlIGNhc2Ugd291bGQgYmUgbW9yZSBpbnRlcmVzdGluZw0KPiBpZiBpdCBhbHNvIHNob3dl ZCBob3cgdGhlIENFIGFjdHVhbGx5IHB1dCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbnRvIHRoZQ0KPiBFbmNhcFRh YmxlIGFuZCBob3cgRXRoZXJFbmNhcCB1c2VzIHRoYXQgdGFibGUuDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+ IFNlY3Rpb25zIDEwLjIsIDEwLjMsIDEwLjQNCj4gDQo+ICBXaHkgaGF2ZSB5b3UgY2hvc2VuICJT cGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIFJlcXVpcmVkIiBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIHNvbWV0aGluZyB0aGF0DQo+ICByZXF1 aXJlcyB0aGUgd29yayB0byBiZSBkb25lIGluc2lkZSB0aGUgSUVURj8gKEkga25vdyB0aGF0IHRo ZQ0KPiAgZGVzaWduYXRlZCBleHBlcnQgd2lsbCBoZWxwIHRvIGtlZXAgY29udHJvbCBvZiB0aGlz LCBidXQgSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlDQo+ICB0byB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoeSB5b3UgZmVlbCB0aGF0IHRo aXMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIG9wZW5lZCB1cCBpbiB0aGlzIHdheS4NCj4gDQo+IC0tLQ0KPiANCj4gU2Vj dGlvbnMgMTAuMiwgMTAuMywgMTAuNA0KPiANCj4gICBNZXRhZGF0YSBJRCAweDgwMDAwMDAwLTB4 RkZGRkZGRkYNCj4gICAgICBNZXRhZGF0YSBJRHMgaW4gdGhpcyByYW5nZSBhcmUgcmVzZXJ2ZWQg Zm9yIHZlbmRvciBwcml2YXRlDQo+ICAgICAgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBhbmQgYXJlIHRoZSByZXNwb25z aWJpbGl0eSBvZiBpbmRpdmlkdWFscy4NCj4gDQo+IC4uLmV0Yy4NCj4gDQo+IFlvdSBzaG91bGQg ZXhwcmVzcyB0aGlzIGluIFJGQyA1MjI2IGxhbmd1YWdlIChpLmUuLCAiUHJpdmF0ZSBVc2UiKS4N Cj4gDQo+IEdlbmVyYWxseSBJIGRvbid0IGxpa2UgIlByaXZhdGUgVXNlIiBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBp biB0aGUgcm91dGluZyBhcmVhLCANCj4gYnV0IEkgc3VwcG9zZSB3ZSBjYW4gYXJndWUgdGhhdCB0 aGlzIGlzIHJlYWxseSBhbiBtYW5hZ2VtZW50L2FwcGxpY2F0aW9uDQo+IGxheWVyIHByb3RvY29s IGFuZCBwYXNzIG9uIHRoYXQuIGJ1dCBJIGFtIGEgbGl0dGxlIGRpc2FwcG9pbnRlZCB0aGF0IA0K PiB0aGVyZSBpcyB2ZXJ5IGxpdHRsZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgcHJpdmF0ZSB2 YWx1ZXMuIDUuNC4xLjEgYW5kDQo+IDUuNC4yLjEgbWFrZSBtZW50aW9uLCBidXQgb25seSB0byBz dWdnZXN0IGxvb2tpbmcgaW4gdGhlIElBTkEgDQo+IENvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIHNlY3Rpb24gZm9y IG1vcmUgZGV0YWlscyAod2hpY2ggZG8gbm90IGV4aXN0KS4gSSB3b3VsZA0KPiBhbHNvIGhhdmUg dGhvdWdodCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBTZWN1cml0eSBpbXBsaWNhdGlvbnMgb2YgdGhlIHVzZSBv Zg0KPiAiUHJpdmF0ZSBVc2UiIHZhbHVlcy4NCj4gDQo+IE1vcmUgdGV4dCwgcGxlYXNlLg0KPiAN Cj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gZm9y Y2VzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBmb3JjZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9mb3JjZXMNCj4= From hadi@mojatatu.com Tue Dec 11 04:57:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6DB21F87B3 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:57:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lO5o6zyKVubT for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:57:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571BB21F8715 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:57:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so3921799vbb.31 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:57:52 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=W9NSoivhJGOcXaNNnsZ85mzLiW8JJpcMzbQJNHPlakA=; b=nDn0WkfLcR3qHFZN2M89aPOIhqMAT0ro52j/YTWVV5aNMvlpoCb7rSFc5OVT0YOKum hVJ77fz8FupXcl+Hvw4XSpfdtPQl+BbFxar47W8Bi2xHM8nDwyWG0CuAk5Yw3ieGh7dq ztxFqBZKzRanA7VsaoBTg8cCha+K5b6lF6TJLPiwUa96uXGgagLVHc+J7Exs3qFLiqPj fO8EhXvCEy5daTDbL/GOjMdL+byDDhlYQYf3oZsceb6vRkd1w72KldlXMTg7Q3rkk1v0 9gP+aH9ul3FtAFbfllHDtGIRFE4F5x+Ek6DbR6880t0EMtPTKtprG6T48AQxA3VJxTU+ AEug== Received: by 10.52.180.200 with SMTP id dq8mr5366511vdc.71.1355230671978; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:57:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 04:57:31 -0800 (PST) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:57:31 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkV36KlabuftCZjPVV72Vcr4tr47wuvbGGobDqr4LHw0nIMwJWMfS6/Q/716Sg6QbgnL57 Subject: [forces] item #6 CE-CE interface X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:57:54 -0000 What it is ---------- The Fr interface which is currently outside the charter. Essentially the CE East-west interface. Why this is needed: ------------------- While ForCES explicitly calls out that the Fr interface is up to the implementation, anyone building an HA infrastructure today ends up implementing this interface. Experience has shown ForCES could be used for the Fr interface. The model could be used to define the controllable components and the protocol seems sufficient from basic implementation experience. All this is outside the charter. Please respond whether you: a) are interested in doing the work b) will review the work c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG d) do not think we should do this work cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Tue Dec 11 05:37:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADC921F8462 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:37:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Id-M5+zKgFSN for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:37:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A041221F8456 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:37:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so3967047vbb.31 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:37:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=l+5mgh9EX5s9FaHxh/bXR5TrAQFsztoHdANNoaZxPRQ=; b=VjofNfGm8q80o6GiT6hrWCqC4gS5Y2dIw8AnSFtrStIFMjT7IOJwwYVt9VHjtVxWHn VTJPcAoQ9PHY80pLmI1Mow934gfRMOxXSXtK5MY+w5mVpA6otHm6M2yqlXAheFoQ5q85 zzvtCTUfuO9+RWnzumrhoCHCOOEV290iNzJfQAag8yrlbVTmjjTugxxBDz0TGyus3kCW j7yGI2fauczixCkRHGaGIEb8eIzEmcgKiPTdtE2+krXp7kKZXnOpSbavhbux9tVtk5pU aIzkgTBcCC4/bcMU1Qu/u/UoUs+euePVHjrVljgYuJyVYYPcuilP2zdST76aX7d2s3cu iNKA== Received: by 10.52.99.106 with SMTP id ep10mr9949961vdb.53.1355233043139; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:37:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.248.74 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:37:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121211000655.1329.3970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:37:02 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7I2Yb94G6u6ZqU5SBo2kCm0WAjev/Ec7wYIFjGLx2K2gXmxv7t9rgzehhxpystNmQmf2t Cc: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib Subject: [forces] Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:37:24 -0000 Sorry, I meant for this to go to the list as well. I should clarify on one of my comments below: While the conjoined FIB/NH is common it is not as common as a disjoint model which is what is defined here. So "optimize for the common" is relevant in this scope. cheers, jamal ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM Subject: Re: ID Tracker State Update Notice: To: IETF Secretariat Cc: forces-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib@tools.ietf.org Excellent review Adrian - and you made my job as shepherd easier by posting on the list (I dont have to go chase the authors ;-> I see they picked it up already). On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote: > > In 4.4 in IPv4PrefixTableInfo, what is this all about... > > > Reserved > Reserved for future use > uchar > > > Actually, I see several similar (e.g. in VlanInputTableEntryType) > > If this is an extensible format (I thought it was) why do you have > reserved fields? > I believe this was my suggestion based on implementation experience of these LFBs. The idea is to ensure that everything is 32 bit aligned. The protocol requires that we have 32 bit alignment and those specific things you are looking at labelled as "reserved" have "holes" which will end up being padded to meet that requirement (and so they can be properly parsed at the receiver). I suggested they be labelled as "reserved" to make them visible. > Section 5.3 discusses the actual and potential implementation > architectures and implies that some are more suited to this library than > others. That bothers me: this whole project is supposed to be about > abstraction and the abstraction is supposed to suit any (reasonable) > implementation model since it is the functions of forwarding that are > described, not the components of an implementation. > > So I think the section should not make (what I think are dubious) > statements about "typical" and "usual" implementations. If it is > necessary to mention implementations (which I don't think it is) you > should do so in a light way and just note that this library is agnostic > to the implementation model and can be applied across all > implementations with recognition that the functional elements described > in the LFBs might be realised in a different way in an implementation, > but that the functions performed will be identical. > So herein lies the dilema in general in modelling vs existing implementations. Some implementation approach will be "penalized" relative to others. Joel and I often disagree on this mostly; i think he is in the same camp as you that the model shouldnt worry about the implementations. The engineer in me refused to let it go. I insisted on calling this part out because those two approaches are very common implementations. And the model favors one over the other i.e implementations with a conjoined FIB/NH tables will have to do more of a translation. I agree on the "light" call of this issue - but not sure how much more you can tone it down. cheers, jamal From joel@stevecrocker.com Tue Dec 11 06:56:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F4121F8784 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:56:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2HgHYSbhWy4I for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:56:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3BA21F86D4 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:56:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from dummy.name; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:59:26 +0000 Message-ID: <50C7499A.8030300@stevecrocker.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:56:26 -0500 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: <20121211000655.1329.3970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib Subject: Re: [forces] Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: - model structures X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:56:31 -0000 Actually, I do no tthink that the issue is common vs uncommon. If we had to make a call on that basis, it would indicate a problem in the structure. Rather, the issue is ease of mapping. Given a model which represent FIB and Next-Hop as separate pieces, it is very easy for hardware which combines them to express the adjacency restriction and to map the two sets of information to one hardware construct. Conversely, if we represented them as one LFB, there would be o way to represent the possibility in some devices that there could be LFBs between the two functions. And the mapping into separate logic, from a single LFB instance, would be much harder. Yours, Joel M. Halpern On 12/11/2012 8:37 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Sorry, I meant for this to go to the list as well. > I should clarify on one of my comments below: > While the conjoined FIB/NH is common it is not as common as > a disjoint model which is what is defined here. So "optimize > for the common" is relevant in this scope. > > cheers, > jamal > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jamal Hadi Salim > Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM > Subject: Re: ID Tracker State Update Notice: > To: IETF Secretariat > Cc: forces-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib@tools.ietf.org > > > Excellent review Adrian - and you made my job as shepherd easier by posting > on the list (I dont have to go chase the authors ;-> I see they picked > it up already). > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM, IETF Secretariat > wrote: >> >> In 4.4 in IPv4PrefixTableInfo, what is this all about... >> >> >> Reserved >> Reserved for future use >> uchar >> >> >> Actually, I see several similar (e.g. in VlanInputTableEntryType) >> >> If this is an extensible format (I thought it was) why do you have >> reserved fields? >> > > > I believe this was my suggestion based on implementation experience of > these LFBs. > The idea is to ensure that everything is 32 bit aligned. The protocol requires > that we have 32 bit alignment and those specific things you are looking > at labelled as "reserved" have "holes" which will end up being padded to > meet that requirement (and so they can be properly parsed at the receiver). > I suggested they be labelled as "reserved" to make them visible. > >> Section 5.3 discusses the actual and potential implementation >> architectures and implies that some are more suited to this library than >> others. That bothers me: this whole project is supposed to be about >> abstraction and the abstraction is supposed to suit any (reasonable) >> implementation model since it is the functions of forwarding that are >> described, not the components of an implementation. >> >> So I think the section should not make (what I think are dubious) >> statements about "typical" and "usual" implementations. If it is >> necessary to mention implementations (which I don't think it is) you >> should do so in a light way and just note that this library is agnostic >> to the implementation model and can be applied across all >> implementations with recognition that the functional elements described >> in the LFBs might be realised in a different way in an implementation, >> but that the functions performed will be identical. >> > > So herein lies the dilema in general in modelling vs existing implementations. > Some implementation approach will be "penalized" relative to others. Joel > and I often disagree on this mostly; i think he is in the same camp as you > that the model shouldnt worry about the implementations. The engineer > in me refused to let it go. > I insisted on calling this part out because those two approaches are very > common implementations. And the model favors one over the other i.e > implementations with a conjoined FIB/NH tables will have to do more of > a translation. > I agree on the "light" call of this issue - but not sure how much more you > can tone it down. > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Dec 11 08:16:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67CB621F87B3 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:16:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.475 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id feF7X0P4yH7F for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33AB421F86E4 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:16:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBBGG4Wp029973; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:16:04 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBBGG3pL029967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:16:03 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Joel'" , "'Jamal Hadi Salim'" References: <20121211000655.1329.3970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50C7499A.8030300@stevecrocker.com> In-Reply-To: <50C7499A.8030300@stevecrocker.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:16:01 -0000 Message-ID: <077901cdd7ba$d0894b80$719be280$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEp/y4zrj6w3zWxTwdUE8QgTzT1CwE7PYXMAdkh7+oCmSC/VZkuCn5g Content-Language: en-gb Cc: forces@ietf.org, 'draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib' Subject: Re: [forces] Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: - model structures X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:16:07 -0000 Yes, I agree with Joel's view on this. The reason why functional architectures split things into separate functional components is to allow implementation freedom in which one can implement the architecture or combine the blocks in different ways. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: forces-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Joel > Sent: 11 December 2012 14:56 > To: Jamal Hadi Salim > Cc: forces@ietf.org; draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib > Subject: Re: [forces] Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: lib-09.txt> - model structures > > Actually, I do no tthink that the issue is common vs uncommon. If we > had to make a call on that basis, it would indicate a problem in the > structure. > > Rather, the issue is ease of mapping. Given a model which represent FIB > and Next-Hop as separate pieces, it is very easy for hardware which > combines them to express the adjacency restriction and to map the two > sets of information to one hardware construct. Conversely, if we > represented them as one LFB, there would be o way to represent the > possibility in some devices that there could be LFBs between the two > functions. And the mapping into separate logic, from a single LFB > instance, would be much harder. > > Yours, > Joel M. Halpern > > On 12/11/2012 8:37 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > Sorry, I meant for this to go to the list as well. > > I should clarify on one of my comments below: > > While the conjoined FIB/NH is common it is not as common as > > a disjoint model which is what is defined here. So "optimize > > for the common" is relevant in this scope. > > > > cheers, > > jamal > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Jamal Hadi Salim > > Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM > > Subject: Re: ID Tracker State Update Notice: > > To: IETF Secretariat > > Cc: forces-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib@tools.ietf.org > > > > > > Excellent review Adrian - and you made my job as shepherd easier by posting > > on the list (I dont have to go chase the authors ;-> I see they picked > > it up already). > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM, IETF Secretariat > > wrote: > >> > >> In 4.4 in IPv4PrefixTableInfo, what is this all about... > >> > >> > >> Reserved > >> Reserved for future use > >> uchar > >> > >> > >> Actually, I see several similar (e.g. in VlanInputTableEntryType) > >> > >> If this is an extensible format (I thought it was) why do you have > >> reserved fields? > >> > > > > > > I believe this was my suggestion based on implementation experience of > > these LFBs. > > The idea is to ensure that everything is 32 bit aligned. The protocol requires > > that we have 32 bit alignment and those specific things you are looking > > at labelled as "reserved" have "holes" which will end up being padded to > > meet that requirement (and so they can be properly parsed at the receiver). > > I suggested they be labelled as "reserved" to make them visible. > > > >> Section 5.3 discusses the actual and potential implementation > >> architectures and implies that some are more suited to this library than > >> others. That bothers me: this whole project is supposed to be about > >> abstraction and the abstraction is supposed to suit any (reasonable) > >> implementation model since it is the functions of forwarding that are > >> described, not the components of an implementation. > >> > >> So I think the section should not make (what I think are dubious) > >> statements about "typical" and "usual" implementations. If it is > >> necessary to mention implementations (which I don't think it is) you > >> should do so in a light way and just note that this library is agnostic > >> to the implementation model and can be applied across all > >> implementations with recognition that the functional elements described > >> in the LFBs might be realised in a different way in an implementation, > >> but that the functions performed will be identical. > >> > > > > So herein lies the dilema in general in modelling vs existing implementations. > > Some implementation approach will be "penalized" relative to others. Joel > > and I often disagree on this mostly; i think he is in the same camp as you > > that the model shouldnt worry about the implementations. The engineer > > in me refused to let it go. > > I insisted on calling this part out because those two approaches are very > > common implementations. And the model favors one over the other i.e > > implementations with a conjoined FIB/NH tables will have to do more of > > a translation. > > I agree on the "light" call of this issue - but not sure how much more you > > can tone it down. > > > > cheers, > > jamal > > _______________________________________________ > > forces mailing list > > forces@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > > > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces From hadi@mojatatu.com Tue Dec 11 09:20:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A1E21F8703 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:20:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4my8CWTj7I9F for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315DC21F8505 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:20:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w11so1862877bku.31 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:20:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=oNwROiazx0KNH2AuONeJo4OuM7Q5FmE8XYwSCbe8lco=; b=K347h9jOvQQqTAF7LtM3mqoO4LE1amkUbu6RT2qwBDofWBz9y/7AuGjJCLfvKk66s6 zyaZpYglqexHlTszaIkezOr5bW8LaA/UtiflyyLLTLDzFm9gmG4Xm56/m1qHZs560Ffd FkX7WiNsDRoUCm2fwbr2g9pEmE/jDAqfuvV9bVTRGnuXAmEp1A040QhXXsOiFVoQkSI0 pdDf+ATDOKz62BPPzF5OV900rZtUGVjBHWL6RuKox9Gig1rJGEG+cKsvflKvgCXNMncT mnPj1jBdxYftAUmz/RVTS5gqLytybD9qHlMQhqd9pbSwB9S+bE8ORlhQdsMTM6tu83+O Rd0Q== Received: by 10.204.149.11 with SMTP id r11mr6462223bkv.93.1355246419786; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:20:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.116.206 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:19:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <077901cdd7ba$d0894b80$719be280$@olddog.co.uk> References: <20121211000655.1329.3970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50C7499A.8030300@stevecrocker.com> <077901cdd7ba$d0894b80$719be280$@olddog.co.uk> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:19:58 -0500 Message-ID: To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkLIj8h0KTp49K5Kv3I9+hI90gV6lpQdabi/yp7VAjNpHvWES/oPoiSA47/rIkVfoO9ZOmU Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib Subject: Re: [forces] Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: - model structures X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:20:24 -0000 So I am not disagreeing on the functional architectural view that the model takes. I was hoping that the extra info, as described, would reduce confusion for an implementer; if that goal is not achieved then it not useful to have. cheers, jamal On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Yes, I agree with Joel's view on this. The reason why functional architectures > split things into separate functional components is to allow implementation > freedom in which one can implement the architecture or combine the blocks in > different ways. > > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: forces-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Joel >> Sent: 11 December 2012 14:56 >> To: Jamal Hadi Salim >> Cc: forces@ietf.org; draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib >> Subject: Re: [forces] Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: > > lib-09.txt> - model structures >> >> Actually, I do no tthink that the issue is common vs uncommon. If we >> had to make a call on that basis, it would indicate a problem in the >> structure. >> >> Rather, the issue is ease of mapping. Given a model which represent FIB >> and Next-Hop as separate pieces, it is very easy for hardware which >> combines them to express the adjacency restriction and to map the two >> sets of information to one hardware construct. Conversely, if we >> represented them as one LFB, there would be o way to represent the >> possibility in some devices that there could be LFBs between the two >> functions. And the mapping into separate logic, from a single LFB >> instance, would be much harder. >> >> Yours, >> Joel M. Halpern >> >> On 12/11/2012 8:37 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: >> > Sorry, I meant for this to go to the list as well. >> > I should clarify on one of my comments below: >> > While the conjoined FIB/NH is common it is not as common as >> > a disjoint model which is what is defined here. So "optimize >> > for the common" is relevant in this scope. >> > >> > cheers, >> > jamal >> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Jamal Hadi Salim >> > Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM >> > Subject: Re: ID Tracker State Update Notice: > >> > To: IETF Secretariat >> > Cc: forces-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib@tools.ietf.org >> > >> > >> > Excellent review Adrian - and you made my job as shepherd easier by posting >> > on the list (I dont have to go chase the authors ;-> I see they picked >> > it up already). >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM, IETF Secretariat >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> In 4.4 in IPv4PrefixTableInfo, what is this all about... >> >> >> >> >> >> Reserved >> >> Reserved for future use >> >> uchar >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually, I see several similar (e.g. in VlanInputTableEntryType) >> >> >> >> If this is an extensible format (I thought it was) why do you have >> >> reserved fields? >> >> >> > >> > >> > I believe this was my suggestion based on implementation experience of >> > these LFBs. >> > The idea is to ensure that everything is 32 bit aligned. The protocol > requires >> > that we have 32 bit alignment and those specific things you are looking >> > at labelled as "reserved" have "holes" which will end up being padded to >> > meet that requirement (and so they can be properly parsed at the receiver). >> > I suggested they be labelled as "reserved" to make them visible. >> > >> >> Section 5.3 discusses the actual and potential implementation >> >> architectures and implies that some are more suited to this library than >> >> others. That bothers me: this whole project is supposed to be about >> >> abstraction and the abstraction is supposed to suit any (reasonable) >> >> implementation model since it is the functions of forwarding that are >> >> described, not the components of an implementation. >> >> >> >> So I think the section should not make (what I think are dubious) >> >> statements about "typical" and "usual" implementations. If it is >> >> necessary to mention implementations (which I don't think it is) you >> >> should do so in a light way and just note that this library is agnostic >> >> to the implementation model and can be applied across all >> >> implementations with recognition that the functional elements described >> >> in the LFBs might be realised in a different way in an implementation, >> >> but that the functions performed will be identical. >> >> >> > >> > So herein lies the dilema in general in modelling vs existing > implementations. >> > Some implementation approach will be "penalized" relative to others. Joel >> > and I often disagree on this mostly; i think he is in the same camp as you >> > that the model shouldnt worry about the implementations. The engineer >> > in me refused to let it go. >> > I insisted on calling this part out because those two approaches are very >> > common implementations. And the model favors one over the other i.e >> > implementations with a conjoined FIB/NH tables will have to do more of >> > a translation. >> > I agree on the "light" call of this issue - but not sure how much more you >> > can tone it down. >> > >> > cheers, >> > jamal >> > _______________________________________________ >> > forces mailing list >> > forces@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> forces mailing list >> forces@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From hadi@mojatatu.com Tue Dec 11 09:54:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FFD21F843F for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S-ESeJe6mbNv for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2876E21F843D for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w11so1883833bku.31 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:14 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=k+/gscgjN/MytRK8R4XzXi4uj5NQsuMw3lzzOgwbzVs=; b=A+KmKbsgFPmWfqX2tDfVodZXW7wqUcHxgi4j5XbiN8laqToOmQ6jeFwgliPpV8ouP+ VWb/SyeiJGik2wVXPPCq+hTa3QHlRGHzGVHL5gzuywAYvKofPg1jarCVAcWPX4+pApBS 1vjjnXj4i2Sg/HrmZt5cOETGcD7QKwmjGVEx3tWZVsDq8UmjG9LUI/y5UuP044JfqF8k fphtshcJ0d6pDLdfAO0GsFOj6Y7huAtEnhZmKKVqzlOIC0aLK9M1Bk5Qhs0oQZpIgkEQ TtloTfX7lcm7LTeAYkrmdyAmwvdh+LgUEmnTfKvXStP/nYRh2rIJIyAPeRA3IyoO967a Fn6w== Received: by 10.204.5.205 with SMTP id 13mr6851869bkw.111.1355248454038; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.116.206 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:53:53 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl2ZEFNHgAeaQP6cP4A8SiE6qmmnBMo4A3QKTbCie6c/tC3gfX5lyasvxWi43OsLP73+icf Subject: Re: [forces] item #6 CE-CE interface X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:54:16 -0000 Not speaking as chair: This is of interest to us. And we will do #a-#c. cheers, jamal On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > What it is > ---------- > The Fr interface which is currently outside the charter. > Essentially the CE East-west interface. > > Why this is needed: > ------------------- > While ForCES explicitly calls out that the Fr interface is up to the > implementation, anyone building an HA infrastructure today ends up > implementing this interface. > Experience has shown ForCES could be used for the Fr interface. > The model could be used to define the controllable components and > the protocol seems sufficient from basic implementation experience. > > All this is outside the charter. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal From ashwani.kumar.a.mehra@ericsson.com Tue Dec 11 21:06:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B7321F8727 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:06:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oYZdsHnZCvp9 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:06:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C441621F870E for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:06:33 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f736d0000010de-b0-50c810d8be92 Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 31.F6.04318.8D018C05; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:06:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from 4NZN7R1.egi.ericsson.com (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:06:32 +0100 Message-ID: <50C810D6.4050704@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:36:30 +0530 From: Ashwani Mehra Organization: Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020208050203050104060503" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje4NgRMBBrvvCFg8fDObzeL21j1s DkweS5b8ZPLYdmstawBTFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG/IXf2Qp2SlRs/bmFsYHxiHAXIweHhICJ xPfjoV2MnECmmMSFe+vZuhi5OIQETjJKvPgyF8rZwijx5FkTG0gDr4C2xJTnLCANLAKqEq9b FjGDhNkELCQuPcoBCQsJ6EgsvT+JCcTmFzCVeNg7ixWkRFQgTGL6TnaQMK+AoMTJmU/ApogI aEh0t64DizMLCEssnDOTDcQWFnCTWHT0ABPEyACJvp0TwGo4BQIljp3aygZRHyaxYv5GNoga fYljDR1MExiFZiFZMQtJGYRtK3FhznWouLzE9rdzmCFsXYkL/6egiC9gZFvFyJ6bmJmTXm6+ iREY7Ae3/DbYwbjpvtghRmkOFiVxXj3V/f5CAumJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGJ3F InslCyeIRfx9EHVYQ/Se/U/BUGnjkNNz5++bnNknH3/1ZWeOY07nStea19tcz20zbwzTuyd6 xfLOlZbz337bd8aoe16LfJJ4qGPjWrnyZddijbcWX977MkI6NoQ/7jLjeu3Jx55JqXEXR+VU xS1VX12RtVNna9238g+u8e+d3fW0Sop9lViKMxINtZiLihMBjvnv8kQCAAA= Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #5 Northbound interface/Services definition X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ashwani.kumar.a.mehra@ericsson.com List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:06:35 -0000 --------------020208050203050104060503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Agree with (c) and would like to contribute, hence (a). Thanks Ashwani On 12/06/2012 07:28 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > What it is > ----------- > A Services definition interface at the CE; meaning an LFB that resides > at the "CE". Such an LFB would model a service. > This lets a CE become both an "FE" on the northbound (by virtue of > defining an LFB owned by the CE) and a "CE" to other FEs on the > southbound... > > Why this is needed > ----------------------- > a) Allows to use ForCES for a services level interface in a formal way. > The Service level definition is a natural fit for ForCEs. > b) Allows for existence of proxy CEs for scaling reasons. > > All this is outside the charter. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces --------------020208050203050104060503 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,

Agree with (c) and would like to contribute, hence (a).

Thanks
Ashwani
On 12/06/2012 07:28 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
What it is
-----------
A Services definition interface at the CE; meaning an LFB that resides
at the "CE". Such an LFB would model a service.
This lets a CE become both an "FE" on the northbound (by virtue of
defining an LFB owned by the CE) and a "CE" to other FEs on the
southbound...

Why this is needed
-----------------------
a) Allows to use ForCES for a services level interface in a formal way.
The Service level definition is a natural fit for ForCEs.
b) Allows for existence of proxy CEs for scaling reasons.

All this is outside the charter.

Please respond whether you:
a) are interested in doing the work
b) will review the work
c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG
d) do not think we should do this work

cheers,
jamal
_______________________________________________
forces mailing list
forces@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces


--------------020208050203050104060503-- From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Wed Dec 12 19:08:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE1F21F869E for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:08:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.031 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.031 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.388, BAYES_05=-1.11, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xyghylv9N6UH for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:08:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc4-s32.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s32.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC2B21F869F for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:08:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP211 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s32.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:08:45 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [221.12.10.218] X-EIP: [gTdMLuEN5uEjobV81Sl5Th/bCPVxkew9] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from ZJGSUIEE ([221.12.10.218]) by BLU0-SMTP211.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:08:43 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: "Jamal Hadi Salim" , References: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:09:00 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2012 03:08:44.0072 (UTC) FILETIME=[28FF0280:01CDD8DF] Subject: Re: [forces] item #6 CE-CE interface X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:08:47 -0000 SGkgSmFtYWwsIA0KDQpBZnRlciBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyBpbiBteSB0ZWFtLCB3ZSBkZWNpZGUgdG8g am9pbiBpbiB0aGUgd29yaywgc28gaXMgYSksIGIpLCBjKSB0byBtZS4NCg0KdGhhbmtzLA0KV2Vp bWluZw0KDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTogIkphbWFsIEhhZGkg U2FsaW0iIDxoYWRpQG1vamF0YXR1LmNvbT4NClRvOiA8Zm9yY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPg0KU2VudDog V2VkbmVzZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAxMiwgMjAxMiAxOjUzIEFNDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2ZvcmNl c10gaXRlbSAjNiBDRS1DRSBpbnRlcmZhY2UNCg0KDQo+IE5vdCBzcGVha2luZyBhcyBjaGFpcjoN Cj4gVGhpcyBpcyBvZiBpbnRlcmVzdCB0byB1cy4gQW5kIHdlIHdpbGwgZG8gI2EtI2MuDQo+IA0K PiBjaGVlcnMsDQo+IGphbWFsDQo+IA0KPiBPbiBUdWUsIERlYyAxMSwgMjAxMiBhdCA3OjU3IEFN LCBKYW1hbCBIYWRpIFNhbGltIDxoYWRpQG1vamF0YXR1LmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBXaGF0IGl0 IGlzDQo+PiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+PiBUaGUgRnIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIHdoaWNoIGlzIGN1cnJlbnRs eSBvdXRzaWRlIHRoZSBjaGFydGVyLg0KPj4gRXNzZW50aWFsbHkgdGhlIENFIEVhc3Qtd2VzdCBp bnRlcmZhY2UuDQo+Pg0KPj4gV2h5IHRoaXMgaXMgbmVlZGVkOg0KPj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLQ0KPj4gV2hpbGUgRm9yQ0VTIGV4cGxpY2l0bHkgY2FsbHMgb3V0IHRoYXQgdGhlIEZyIGlu dGVyZmFjZSBpcyB1cCB0byB0aGUNCj4+IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLCBhbnlvbmUgYnVpbGRpbmcg YW4gSEEgaW5mcmFzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgdG9kYXkgZW5kcyB1cA0KPj4gaW1wbGVtZW50aW5nIHRoaXMg aW50ZXJmYWNlLg0KPj4gRXhwZXJpZW5jZSBoYXMgc2hvd24gRm9yQ0VTIGNvdWxkIGJlIHVzZWQg Zm9yIHRoZSBGciBpbnRlcmZhY2UuDQo+PiBUaGUgbW9kZWwgY291bGQgYmUgdXNlZCB0byBkZWZp bmUgdGhlIGNvbnRyb2xsYWJsZSBjb21wb25lbnRzIGFuZA0KPj4gdGhlIHByb3RvY29sIHNlZW1z IHN1ZmZpY2llbnQgZnJvbSBiYXNpYyBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiBleHBlcmllbmNlLg0KPj4NCj4+ IEFsbCB0aGlzIGlzIG91dHNpZGUgdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIuDQo+Pg0KPj4gUGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQg d2hldGhlciB5b3U6DQo+PiBhKSBhcmUgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiBkb2luZyB0aGUgd29yaw0KPj4g Yikgd2lsbCByZXZpZXcgdGhlIHdvcmsNCj4+IGMpIGZpbmQgdGhlIHdvcmsgaW50ZXJlc3Rpbmcg YW5kIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBkb25lIGluIHRoZSBXRw0KPj4gZCkgZG8gbm90IHRoaW5rIHdlIHNo b3VsZCBkbyB0aGlzIHdvcmsNCj4+DQo+PiBjaGVlcnMsDQo+PiBqYW1hbA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBmb3JjZXMgbWFpbGluZyBs aXN0DQo+IGZvcmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xp c3RpbmZvL2ZvcmNlcw== From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Dec 14 03:38:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175CD21F8496 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:38:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SS9w03xLO6T6 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:38:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C407C21F8480 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:38:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBEBc9qE021182 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:38:09 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBEBc8IP021173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:38:09 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20121214000322.29540.18074.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121214000322.29540.18074.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:38:06 -0000 Message-ID: <00c801cdd9ef$7cb1f160$7615d420$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQF/7LmGkTL3BO/5VlsEcjN5hWAqH5i0BHJQ Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [forces] FW: Designated Experts for "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Parameters" registry X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:38:14 -0000 ForCES WG, This small piece of admin closes a hole we had in the registry process = and will help us as draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib goes forward. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of IESG > Secretary > Sent: 14 December 2012 00:03 > To: iana@iana.org > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Designated Experts for "Forwarding and Control Element = Separation > (ForCES) Parameters" registry >=20 > IANA, >=20 > The IESG has approved Jamal Hadi Salim (hadi@mojatatu.com) and Joel = Halpern > (jmh@joelhalpern.com) as the designated experts for the "Forwarding = and > Control Element Separation (ForCES) Parameters" registry. >=20 > Best regards, > IESG Secretary From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Fri Dec 14 05:55:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4D221F85BF for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:55:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.887 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.733, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V+aF2Q-5p1fi for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:55:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc4-s16.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s16.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF3921F85BB for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:55:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP226 ([65.55.111.135]) by blu0-omc4-s16.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:55:22 -0800 X-EIP: [PBSmfdY02e/lod3YdEuiZzeLLXrXbnZ3] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from WmwangHome ([125.120.83.158]) by BLU0-SMTP226.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:55:21 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: , References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:55:26 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Dec 2012 13:55:21.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[A851DF20:01CDDA02] Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:55:24 -0000 SGkgQW5kaWFuIGFuZCBhbGwsIA0KDQpJJ20gdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGdpdmUgYSBmaXJzdCByZXNwb25z ZSAgdG8gQUQncyBleGNlbGxlbnQgcmV2aWV3cyBzdWNoIHRoYXQgd2Ugc3RhcnQgdXAgcmVzb2x2 aW5nIHN0ZXBzIGlmIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMgc2VlbSB0byBuZWVkIG1vcmUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMsIGFu ZCB3ZSB0cnkgdG8gZ2l2ZSBkcmFmdCBhbnN3ZXJzIGZvciBjb25zZW5zdXMgaWYgdGhlIGlzc3Vl cyBzZWVtIHJlbGF0aXZlbHkgY2xlYXIgdG8gc29sdmUuIFBsZWFzZSBqdXN0IHNlZSB0ZXh0cyBp bmxpbmUgd2l0aCB0aGlzIHB1cnBvc2UuDQoNCnRoYW5rcywNCldlaW1pbmcNCg0KLS0tLS0gT3Jp Z2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSANCkZyb206ICJBZHJpYW4gRmFycmVsIiA8YWRyaWFuQG9sZGRv Zy5jby51az4NCg0KPiA9PT0NCj4gDQo+IFBsZWFzZSBwaWNrIHVwIHRoZSBtaW5vciBuaXRzIGFu ZCB1bnJlc29sdmVkIGNvbW1lbnRzIHJlZmVyZW5jZWQgaW4gdGhlDQo+IFNoZXBoZXJkIFdyaXRl LXVwLg0KWWVzLHdlIGhhdmUgY2FyZWZ1bGx5IG1hZGUgYSByZWNvcmQgb24gaXNzdWVzIGFuZCBy ZWxhdmVudCB1cGRhdGVzIGFsbCB0aGUgd2F5IHRpbGwgdG9kYXkuDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+ IEkgZGlkbid0IGZpbmQgRmlndXJlIDEgdmVyeSBoZWxwZnVsIGF0IHRoaXMgc3RhZ2Ugb2YgdGhl IGRvY3VtZW50IHdpdGgNCj4gemVybyBkZXNjcmlwdGlvbi4gSSBrbm93IHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIGRl ZmVyIGRldGFpbGVkIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gdW50aWwNCj4gU2VjdGlvbiA3LCBidXQgc29tZSByZWFs bHkgYnJpZWYgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2Ygd2hhdCB0aGUgZmlndXJlIGNvbnRhaW5zDQo+IHdvdWxk IGhhdmUgaGVscGVkOiB3aGF0IGFyZSB0aGUgYm94ZXM/IHdoZXJlIGFyZSB0aGUgaW5wdXRzPyB3 aGVyZSBhcmUNCj4gdGhlIG91dHB1dHM/IHdoYXQgaXMgdGhlIHN0b3J5IHdpdGggSVB2NiBhbmQg bXVsdGljYXN0PyBleHBsYWluIHRoZXJlDQo+IGFyZSBtdWx0aXBsZSBpbnRlcmZhY2VzLCBldGMu LCBldGMuDQo+IA0KSSB0aGluayB3ZSBuZWVkIGEgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhbW9uZyBhdXRob3JzIGFu ZCBKYW1hbCBvbiBob3cgd2UgdHJ5IHRvIGRlcGxveSBub3RhdGlvbnMgYW5kIGlkZWFzIHN0ZXAg Ynkgc3RlcCAgaW4gdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50LiBJJ2QgdmVyeSBtdWNoIGxpa2UgdG8gaGVhciBKYW1h bCdzIHRob3VnaHQuDQoNCkkgdGhpbmsgd2UgbmVlZCBzcGVjaWFsbHkgb3BlbiBhIG1lc3NhZ2Ug dG8gc29sdmUgdGhlIGlzc3VlLiANCg0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IEkgYW0gcmVhbGx5IHVuZWFzeSBh Ym91dCB5b3UgdXNpbmcgYW4gZW51bWVyYXRpb24gZm9yIExBTlNwZWVkVHlwZS4NCj4gVGhlcmUg YXJlIHRocmVlIGNvbmNlcm5zOg0KPiAtIHRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGZ1dHVyZS1wcm9vZmVkIHdpdGhv dXQgbmVlZGluZyB0byByZXZpc2UgdGhlIExGQg0KPiAtIHRoaXMgZG9lcyBub3QgY292ZXIgYWxs IGV4aXN0aW5nIEV0aGVybmV0IGludGVyZmFjZSB0eXBlcyBjdXJyZW50bHkNCj4gIGF2YWlsYWJs ZSAoZS5nLiwgd2lmaSwgZXRjLiwgZXRjLikNCj4gLSB5b3UgY2Fubm90IHNsb3QgbmV3IHZhbHVl cyBpbnRvIHRoZSBsaXN0IGFuZCBrZWVwIHRoZW0gd2VsbC1vcmRlcmVkDQo+IA0KPiBZb3UgbWln aHQgY2xhaW0gdG8gZ2V0IGF3YXkgd2l0aCB0aGlzIGJ5IHN0YXRpbmcgKGFzIHlvdSBkbyBpbiAz LjEgYW5kDQo+IDUuMSkgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGxpYnJhcnkgb25seSBzdXBwb3J0cyBjb3BwZXIgbWVk aWEuIEJ1dCBJIGRvbid0IHNlZSBob3cNCj4geW91IHdpbGwgZXh0ZW5kIHRvIG90aGVyIG1lZGlh LiBXaWxsIHlvdSBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgYSB3aG9sZSBuZXcgc3RydWN0dXJlDQo+IGluIHBhcmFsbGVs IGZvciBvdGhlciBtZWRpYT8gTm90IHRvIG1lbnRpb24gb3RoZXIgTDIgZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlvbnMu DQo+IA0KPiBOb25lIG9mIHRoaXMgc2VlbXMgdmVyeSBmb3J3YXJkLWxvb2tpbmcuDQoNCkkgdGhp bmsgaXQgaXMgYSByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvdWdoIGFuZCBpbXBvcnRhbnQgaXNzdWUuIFRoZSBxdWVz dGlvbiBtYXkgYmUgc3VtbWFyaXplZCBhczogMSkgZG8gd2UgaGF2ZSBvdGhlciBiZXR0ZXIgZGF0 YSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgdGhhbiBlbnVtYXJhdGlvbiBmb3IgZGVzY3JpYmluZyBhIExBTiBzcGVlZCA/ IDIpIGlmIG5vLCBkbyB3ZSBoYXZlIGJldHRlciBlbnVtYXJhdGlvbiBtZXRob2Qgd2l0aCBtb3Jl IGV4dGVzaWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgZmxleGliaWxpdHk/IA0KDQpBdXRob3JzIHBscyBjb250cmlidXRl IG1vcmUgdGhvdWdodHMsIHRoYW5rcy4NCg0KPiANCj4gLS0tDQo+IA0KPiBJIHNlZSB0aGF0IElF RUVNQUMgaXMgZGVmaW5lZCBhcyBhIDYgYnl0ZSB0aGluZyB3aGljaCB3b3JrcyBmb3IgTUFDLTQ4 DQo+IGFuZCBFVUktNDguIEhvdyBpcyBFVUktNjQgaGFuZGxlZD8NCg0KUmVhbGx5IGdvb2QgY2F0 Y2guIA0KQ2h1YW5odWFuZyBzdWdnZXN0cyB0aGVuIHRvIHVzZSBhIHVuaW9uIHN0cnVjdHVyZSB0 byBpbmNsdWRlIHRoZSBFVUktNjQgYXMgYmVsb3cuIA0KDQogICAgICAgPGRhdGFUeXBlRGVmPg0K ICAgICAgICAgIDxuYW1lPklFRUVNQUM8L25hbWU+DQogICAgICAgICAgPHN5bm9wc2lzPklFRUUg TUFDIGFkZHJlc3M8L3N5bm9wc2lzPg0KICAgICAgICAgIDx1bmlvbj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICA8 Y29tcG9uZW50IGNvbXBvbmVudElEPSIxIj4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxuYW1lPk1BQzQ4IDwv bmFtZT4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzeW5vcHNpcz5NQUMtNDg8L3N5bm9wc2lzPg0KICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgPHR5cGVSZWY+IGJ5dGVbNl08L3R5cGVSZWY+DQogICAgICAgICAgICA8L2NvbXBv bmVudD4NCiAgICAgICAgICAgIDxjb21wb25lbnQgY29tcG9uZW50SUQ9IjIiPg0KICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgPG5hbWU+IEVVSTY0PC9uYW1lPg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN5bm9wc2lzPkVVSS02 NDwvc3lub3BzaXM+DQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8dHlwZVJlZj4gYnl0ZVs4XTwvdHlwZVJlZj4N CiAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvY29tcG9uZW50Pg0KICAgICAgICAgIDwvdW5pb24+DQogICAgICAgPC9k YXRhVHlwZURlZj4NCg0KQW55IHRob3VnaHRzPw0KDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IEEgYml0IG9k ZCB0byBkZWZpbmUgdGhlIFNjaGREaXNjaXBsaW5lVHlwZSBhdG9taWMgZGF0YSB0eXBlIGdpdmVu IHRoYXQNCj4gaXQgb25seSBoYXMgb25lIHBvc3NpYmxlIHNldHRpbmcgZGVmaW5lZC4NCg0KV2Ug ZG8gaGFkIGRpc2N1c3Npb25zIHdoZW4gd2UgZGVzaWduZWQgdGhpcyBlbGVtZW50LiBXZSBqdXN0 IHRob3VnaHQgdGhhdCBhbHRob3VnaCBub3cgaXQgb25seSBzZXRzIFJvdW5kIFJvYmluIGFzIHRo ZSBkZWZhdWx0IGFuZCB0aGUgb25seSBzdHJhdGVneSwgZnV0dXJlIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBtaWdodCBj b250YWluIG1vcmUgdHlwZXMgb2Ygc2NoZWR1bGluZyBzdHJhdGVnaWVzLg0KDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0N Cj4gDQo+IExvb2tpbmcgYXQgdGhlIHN0YXRzIEkgc2VlIHRoZXkgdXNlIHNpbXBsZSBpbnRlZ2Vy IHR5cGVzLiAgSW5kZWVkIHlvdQ0KPiBkb24ndCBoYXZlIGF0b21pYyB0eXBlcyBmb3IgY291bnRl cnMuIEJ1dCBJIGNhbid0IGZpbmQgYW55d2hlcmUgaW4gdGhlDQo+IGRvY3VtZW50IHRoYXQgdGFs a3MgYWJvdXQgd2hhdCBoYXBwZW5zIHdoZW4gY291bnRlcnMgd3JhcCBvciBob3cgdG8NCj4gcmVj b3JkIGEgZGlzY29udGludWl0eS4NCg0KTWF5YmUgZGVmaW5pbmcgYSBzcGVjaWZpYyBhdG9taWMg Y291bnRlciB3aXRoIGZ1bGwgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvbiB3cmFwIGFuZCBvdGhlciBwcm9wZXJ0aWVz IGlzIGEgdmVyeSBnb29kIHRyZWF0bWVudC4gTGV0cyBmb2xsb3cgdG8gZGlzY3Vzcy4gVGhhbmtz Lg0KDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IEluIGdlbmVyYWwsIEkgZm91bmQgdGhlIDxzeW5vcHNpcz4g dGV4dCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDQgcmF0aGVyIGhhcmQgdG8NCj4gd29yayB3aXRoLiBJdCBpcyBlaXRo ZXIgY3J5cHRpYyBhbmQgdGVyc2UsIG9yIGluIG5lZWQgb2YgcmV2aWV3Lg0KDQpTdXJlLCB3ZSds IGZpbmlzaCB0aGlzIHdvcmsgaW4gdGhlIHZlcnNpb24uIA0KDQo+IA0KPiBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZS4u Lg0KPiANCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgPGNvbXBvbmVudCBjb21wb25lbnRJRD0iMyI+DQo+ICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIDxuYW1lPkxGQk91dHB1dFNlbGVjdEluZGV4PC9uYW1lPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgPHN5bm9wc2lzPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBJbmRleCBmb3IgYSBwYWNrZXQg dG8gc2VsZWN0IGEgcG9ydCBpbnN0YW5jZSBpbg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBFdGhlckNs YXNzaWZpZXIgTEZCIGdyb3VwIG91dHB1dCBwb3J0IHRvIGxpbmsgdG8gYQ0KPiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICBkb3duc3RyZWFtIExGQi4gUG9zc2libGUgZG93bnN0cmVhbSBMRkJzIGFyZQ0KPiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBJUHY0VmFsaWRhdG9yLCBJUHY2VmFsaWRhdG9yLCBSZWRpcmVjdE91 dCwgZXRjLg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC9zeW5vcHNpcz4NCj4gDQo+IC4uLmRvZXMgbm90 IHBhcnNlIQ0KPiANCj4gVGhlbi4uLg0KPiANCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzcGVjaWFsVmFs dWUgdmFsdWU9IjEiPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8bmFtZT5DbGFzc2lmeU5vTWF0Y2hp bmc8L25hbWU+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzeW5vcHNpcz4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICBUaGVyZSBpcyBubyBtYXRjaGluZyBvZiB0YWJsZXMgaW4gRXRoZXJDbGFzc2lmaWVy DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgTEZCLg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3N5bm9w c2lzPg0KPiANCj4gLi4uYW5kLi4uDQo+IA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHNwZWNpYWxWYWx1 ZSB2YWx1ZT0iMTUiPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPG5hbWU+TWV0YWRhdGFOb01hdGNo aW5nPC9uYW1lPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN5bm9wc2lzPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICBUaGVyZSBpcyBubyBtYXRjaGluZyB3aGVuIGxvb2tpbmcgdXAgdGhlIG1ldGFk YXRhDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGRpc3BhdGNoIHRhYmxlIGluIEJhc2ljTWV0YWRh dGFEaXNwYXRjaCBMRkIuDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3N5bm9wc2lzPg0KPiANCj4g Li4uTm8gbWF0Y2hpbmcgd2hhdD8NCj4gDQo+IC0tLQ0KPiANCj4gSW4gNC40IGluIElQdjRQcmVm aXhUYWJsZUluZm8sIHdoYXQgaXMgdGhpcyBhbGwgYWJvdXQuLi4NCj4gDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAg IDxjb21wb25lbnQgY29tcG9uZW50SUQ9IjUiPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8bmFtZT5SZXNl cnZlZDwvbmFtZT4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN5bm9wc2lzPlJlc2VydmVkIGZvciBmdXR1 cmUgdXNlPC9zeW5vcHNpcz4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHR5cGVSZWY+dWNoYXI8L3R5cGVS ZWY+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvY29tcG9uZW50Pg0KPiANCj4gQWN0dWFsbHksIEkgc2VlIHNl dmVyYWwgc2ltaWxhciAoZS5nLiBpbiBWbGFuSW5wdXRUYWJsZUVudHJ5VHlwZSkNCj4gDQo+IElm IHRoaXMgaXMgYW4gZXh0ZW5zaWJsZSBmb3JtYXQgKEkgdGhvdWdodCBpdCB3YXMpIHdoeSBkbyB5 b3UgaGF2ZQ0KPiByZXNlcnZlZCBmaWVsZHM/DQoNClBscyBzZWUgcmVzcG9uc2UgZnJvbSBKYW1h bCBvbiB0aGlzIHF1ZXN0aW9uLiB0aGFua3MuDQoNCj4gDQo+IC0tLQ0KPiANCj4gNS4yLjIuMQ0K PiANCj4gICBUaGlzIExGQiBwZXJmb3JtcyBJUHY2IHZhbGlkYXRpb24gYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIFtS RkMyNDYwXS4NCj4gDQo+IERlZmluaW5nIElQdjYgdmFsaWRhdGlvbiBieSBSRkMgMjQ2MCBzZWVt cyBsaW1pdGVkLiBXaGF0IGFib3V0IHRoZSBSRkNzDQo+IHRoYXQgdXBkYXRlIDI0NjA/DQoNCk9r LCBDaHVhbmh1YW5nIGhhcyBjaGVja2VkIFJGQyA1MDk1LCBSRkMgNTcyMiwgUkZDIDU4NzEsIFJG QyA2NDM3LCBSRkMgNjU2NCBmb3IgdGhlIHJlbGF2ZW5jZSB3aXRoIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgYW5k IHRoaW5rcyBSRkMyNDYwICxSRkMzNTEzIGFuZCBSRkM2NTY0IGFyZSByZWxhdGVkLiANCg0KPiAN Cj4gSSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaW4gNS4yLjEuMiBmb3IgSVB2NCB2YWxpZGF0aW9uIHlvdSBhcmUgYWJs ZSB0byBwb2ludCBhdCBhDQo+IEZvckNFUyBSRkMgKDU4MTIpLiBXaHkgaXNuJ3QgdGhlcmUgYW4g ZXF1aXZhbGVudCBSRkMgZm9yIElQdjY/DQoNCkl0IHdhcyByZWFsbHkgcmVzdWx0ZWQgZnJvbSBh IG1pc3Rha2VuIGNvcnJlY3Rpb24gZm9yIHByZXZpb3VzIHZlcnNpb24sIHdoaWNoIHNob3VsZCBi ZSBSRkMoMTgxMikgYXMgd2FzIGluIGVhcmxpZXIgdmVyc2lvbi4gV2Ugbm90aWNlZCB0aGlzIGVy cm9yIGFsc28gc29vbiBiZWZvcmUuIFJlYWxseSBhcHByZWNpYXRlIEFEJ3MgY2FyZWZ1bCB3b3Jr IQ0KDQpNb3Jlb3ZlciwgQ2h1YW5odWFuZyBzdWdnZXN0cyB0byByZWZlciBSRkMxODEyIGFuZCBS RkMyNjQ0IGZvciB0aGUgSVBWNCB2YWxpZGF0aW9uIHJlZmVyZW5jZS4NCg0KPiANCj4gLS0tDQo+ IA0KPiBTZWN0aW9uIDUuMyBkaXNjdXNzZXMgdGhlIGFjdHVhbCBhbmQgcG90ZW50aWFsIGltcGxl bWVudGF0aW9uDQo+IGFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZXMgYW5kIGltcGxpZXMgdGhhdCBzb21lIGFyZSBtb3Jl IHN1aXRlZCB0byB0aGlzIGxpYnJhcnkgdGhhbg0KPiBvdGhlcnMuIFRoYXQgYm90aGVycyBtZTog dGhpcyB3aG9sZSBwcm9qZWN0IGlzIHN1cHBvc2VkIHRvIGJlIGFib3V0DQo+IGFic3RyYWN0aW9u IGFuZCB0aGUgYWJzdHJhY3Rpb24gaXMgc3VwcG9zZWQgdG8gc3VpdCBhbnkgKHJlYXNvbmFibGUp DQo+IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG1vZGVsIHNpbmNlIGl0IGlzIHRoZSBmdW5jdGlvbnMgb2YgZm9y d2FyZGluZyB0aGF0IGFyZQ0KPiBkZXNjcmliZWQsIG5vdCB0aGUgY29tcG9uZW50cyBvZiBhbiBp bXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbi4NCj4gDQo+IFNvIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIHNlY3Rpb24gc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBt YWtlICh3aGF0IEkgdGhpbmsgYXJlIGR1YmlvdXMpDQo+IHN0YXRlbWVudHMgYWJvdXQgInR5cGlj YWwiIGFuZCAidXN1YWwiIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucy4gSWYgaXQgaXMNCj4gbmVjZXNzYXJ5IHRv IG1lbnRpb24gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zICh3aGljaCBJIGRvbid0IHRoaW5rIGl0IGlzKSB5b3UN Cj4gc2hvdWxkIGRvIHNvIGluIGEgbGlnaHQgd2F5IGFuZCBqdXN0IG5vdGUgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGxp YnJhcnkgaXMgYWdub3N0aWMNCj4gdG8gdGhlIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG1vZGVsIGFuZCBjYW4g YmUgYXBwbGllZCBhY3Jvc3MgYWxsDQo+IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyB3aXRoIHJlY29nbml0aW9u IHRoYXQgdGhlIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWwgZWxlbWVudHMgZGVzY3JpYmVkDQo+IGluIHRoZSBMRkJzIG1p Z2h0IGJlIHJlYWxpc2VkIGluIGEgZGlmZmVyZW50IHdheSBpbiBhbiBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiwN Cj4gYnV0IHRoYXQgdGhlIGZ1bmN0aW9ucyBwZXJmb3JtZWQgd2lsbCBiZSBpZGVudGljYWwuDQoN CkFjY29yZGluZyB0byB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBoYXBwZW5kIGZvbGxvd2luZyB0aGUgaXNzdWUs IHdlIG1heSBuZWVkIHRvIHJlLXBocmFzZSB0aGUgdGV4dCBhbmQgbWFrZSBpdCBpc29sYXRlZCBm cm9tIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucy4gSWYgdGhlc2VzIG5vIG1vcmUgb2JqZWN0aW9uLCBJJ2wgZ2l2 ZSB1cGRhdGVkIHRleHQgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSB0aG91Z2h0IHNvb24uIA0KDQo+IA0KPiAt LS0NCj4gDQo+IFNlY3Rpb24gNS4zLjENCj4gDQo+ICAgVGhpcyBMRkIgYWxzbyBwcm92aWRlcyBm YWNpbGl0aWVzIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgdXNlcnMgdG8gaW1wbGVtZW50DQo+ICAgZXF1YWwtY29zdCBt dWx0aS1wYXRoIHJvdXRpbmcgKEVDTVApIG9yIHJldmVyc2UgcGF0aCBmb3J3YXJkaW5nDQo+ICAg KFJQRikuICBIb3dldmVyLCB0aGlzIExGQiBpdHNlbGYgZG9lcyBub3QgcHJvdmlkZSBFQ01QIG9y IFJQRi4gIFRvDQo+ICAgZnVsbHkgaW1wbGVtZW50IEVDTVAgb3IgUlBGLCBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIHNw ZWNpZmljIExGQnMsIGxpa2UgYQ0KPiAgIHNwZWNpZmljIEVDTVAgTEZCIG9yIGFuIFJQRiBMRkIs IHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0byBiZSBkZWZpbmVkLiBUaGlzIHdvcmsNCj4gICBtYXkgYmUgZG9uZSBpbiB0 aGUgZnV0dXJlIHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0KPiANCj4gSSBndWVzcyBpdCB3b24n dCA6LSkNCg0KU28sIGxldHMganVzdCByZW1vdmUgdGhlIHRleHQgb2YgdGhlIGxhc3Qgc2VudGVu c2UgPw0KDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IFNlY3Rpb24gNS4zLjEuMg0KPiANCj4gSXNuJ3QgdGhl IG9yZGVyIG9mIGVudHJpZXMgaW4gSVB2NFByZWZpeFRhYmxlIHN1cHBvc2VkIHRvIGhhdmUgYW4N Cj4gaW1wbGljaXQgbWVhbmluZz8gTWF5YmUgdGhpcyBoYXMgdG8gYmUgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGluIHRo aXMgc2VjdGlvbiBvcg0KPiBtYXliZSBpdCBiZWxvbmdzIHdpdGggdGhlIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2Yg SVB2NFByZWZpeFRhYmxlVHlwZS4NCj4gDQo+IE9idmlvdXNseSB0aGUgc2FtZSBpc3N1ZSBhcHBs aWVzIHRvIElQdjYuDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCj4gDQo+IFNlY3Rpb24gNS41LjEuMQ0KPiANCj4gICBU aGUgc2Vjb25kIG91dHB1dCBpcyBhIHNpbmdsZXRvbiBvdXRwdXQgcG9ydCBrbm93biBhcyAiRXhj ZXB0aW9uT3V0IiwNCj4gICB3aGljaCB3aWxsIG91dHB1dCBwYWNrZXRzIGZvciB3aGljaCB0aGUg ZGF0YSBwcm9jZXNzaW5nIGZhaWxlZCwgYWxvbmcNCj4gICB3aXRoIGFuIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgRXhj ZXB0aW9uSUQgbWV0YWRhdGEgdG8gaW5kaWNhdGUgd2hhdCBjYXVzZWQgdGhlDQo+ICAgZXhjZXB0 aW9uLiAgQ3VycmVudGx5IGRlZmluZWQgZXhjZXB0aW9uIHR5cGVzIGluY2x1ZGU6DQo+IA0KPiAg IG8gIFRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIG1hdGNoaW5nIHdoZW4gbG9va2luZyB1cCB0aGUgbWV0YWRhdGEgZGlz cGF0Y2ggdGFibGUuDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgaW1wbGljYXRpb24gaGVyZSBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGFy ZSBvdGhlciBtZW1iZXJzIG9mIEV4Y2VwdGlvbklEIHRoYXQNCj4gYXJlIGFsc28gY3VycmVudGx5 IHZhbGlkLiAgSXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgY2FzZT8gaWYgbm90LCBwZXJoYXBzIHlvdSBjb3VsZA0KPiBj aGFuZ2UgdGhlIHdvcmRpbmcgc2xpZ2h0bHkuDQo+IA0KPiAoVGhpcyBpcyBhIHByb2JsZW0gcmVw ZWF0ZWQgdGhyb3VnaG91dCBTZWN0aW9uIDUsIGJ1dCBpdCBvbmx5IHN0cnVjayBtZQ0KPiB3aGVu IEkgZ290IHRoaXMgZmFyIDotKQ0KDQpBdCB0aGUgYmVnaW5uaW5nIG9mIGRlc2lnbiwgd2UgZGlk IGJlbGlldmUgaXQgbWlnaHQgaGF2ZSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gb25lIGNhc2UuIFdlIGtlcHQgdGhlIGZv cm1hdCB0aGVuLiANClNvLCBuZWVkIGNoYW5nZSB0aGUgd29yZGluZy4gDQoNCj4gDQo+IEJ1dCBp dCBkb2VzIGJyaW5nIHVwIHRoZSB1c3VhbCBjb25jZXJuIHdpdGggYSBjb21tb24gc2V0IG9mIHJl dHVybiBjb2Rlcw0KPiB0aGF0IGFyZSBzaGFyZWQgYWNyb3NzIGEgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGZ1bmN0aW9u cy4gSW4gdGhpcyBjYXNlLCB5b3UgdXNlDQo+IEV4Y2VwdGlvbklEIGZvciBvdXRwdXQgZnJvbSBh IG51bWJlciBvZiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgTEZCcywgYnV0IHNvbWUgdmFsdWVzDQo+IGFyZSBvbmx5IGFw cHJvcHJpYXRlIGZvciBzb21lIExGQnMuIEhvdyBkb2VzIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGVyIHVuZGVyc3Rh bmQNCj4gd2hpY2ggdmFsdWVzIGFyZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBmb3Igd2hpY2ggTEZCcz8gSXMgdGhl IHRleHQgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA1DQo+IHN1cHBvc2VkIHRvIGJlIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSBpbiB0aGlzIHJl c3BlY3Q/IEkgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBleHBlY3RlZCB0byBmaW5kDQo+IHNvbWUgaGVscCBpbiB0aGUg WE1MIChtYXliZSBpbiB0aGUgZGVzY3JpcHRpdmUgdGV4dCBvciBtYXliZSBpbiB0aGUNCj4gbm9y bWF0aXZlIGRlZmluaXRpb24pLCBidXQgYWxsIHdlIGhhdmUgaXMgYSBwb2ludGVyIHRvIHRoZSBh dG9taWMgdHlwZQ0KPiBpdHNlbGY6IGZvciBleGFtcGxlLA0KPiANCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgPG91 dHB1dFBvcnQgZ3JvdXA9ImZhbHNlIj4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPG5hbWU+RXhjZXB0aW9u T3V0PC9uYW1lPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8c3lub3BzaXM+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgVGhlIG91dHB1dCBwb3J0IG91dHB1dHMgcGFja2V0cyBmb3Igd2hpY2ggdGhlIGRhdGENCj4g ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBwcm9jZXNzaW5nIGZhaWxlZCwgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBhbiBhZGRpdGlv bmFsDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgRXhjZXB0aW9uSUQgbWV0YWRhdGEgdG8gaW5kaWNhdGUg d2hhdCBjYXVzZWQgdGhlDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgZXhjZXB0aW9uLg0KPiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICA8L3N5bm9wc2lzPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8cHJvZHVjdD4NCj4gICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgPGZyYW1lUHJvZHVjZWQ+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxyZWY+ QXJiaXRyYXJ5PC9yZWY+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvZnJhbWVQcm9kdWNlZD4NCj4g ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPG1ldGFkYXRhUHJvZHVjZWQ+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIDxyZWY+RXhjZXB0aW9uSUQ8L3JlZj4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC9tZXRhZGF0 YVByb2R1Y2VkPg0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8L3Byb2R1Y3Q+DQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgIDwv b3V0cHV0UG9ydD4NCg0KRmlyc3RseSwgU2VjdGlvbiA1IGlzIG5vcm1hdGl2ZSB0byBMRkIgZGVm aW5pdGlvbnMgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gZGVzY3JpcHRpdmVseSBpbmZvcm1hdGl2ZS4gDQoNClRoZW4s IHdlIHRob3VnaHQgYSBnZW5lcmFsIGV4Y2VwdGlvbiBkZWZpbml0aW9uIHNob3VsZCBub3QgcmVz dWx0IGluIGFibWlndWl0eSBpZiBpbXBsZW1ldGVycyBvYmV5cyB0aGUgdGV4dCBsaWtlIGluIFNl Y3Rpb24gNSwgaS5lLiwgZm9yIGEgc3BlY2lmaWMgTEZCLCBTZWN0aW9uIDUgZGVmaW5lcyB0aGUg ZXhjZXB0aW9uIGNhc2VzIGFuZCBhbGwgb3RoZXIgY2FzZXMgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSB0cmFuc2xh dGVkIGluIG1lYW5pbmcuIA0KDQpIb3BlIGF1dGhvcnMgZ2l2ZSB5b3VyIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgb2Yg dGhlIGlzc3VlLiBUaGFua3MuDQoNCj4gDQo+IC0tLQ0KPiANCj4gU2VjdGlvbiA3LjINCj4gDQo+ ICAgVGhlIEV0aGVyRW5jYXAgTEZCLCBhcyBkZXNjcmliZWQgZWFybGllciwgcmVjZWl2ZXMgcGFj a2V0cyB0aGF0IG5lZWQNCj4gICBFdGhlcm5ldCBMMiBlbmNhcHN1bGF0aW5nLg0KPiANCj4gSSBm ZWx0IHRoYXQgYSBkaXJlY3QgcG9pbnRlciB3b3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIGhlbHBmdWwgdGhhbiAiYXMg ZGVzY3JpYmVkDQo+IGVhcmxpZXIiLg0KIA0KTW9kaWZpZWQgdG86ICJUaGUgRXRoZXJFbmNhcCBM RkIsIGFzIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDUuMS40LCByZWNlaXZlcyBwYWNrZXRzIHRoYXQg bmVlZCBFdGhlcm5ldCBMMiBlbmNhcHN1bGF0aW5nLiAiIA0KDQo+IA0KPiBUaGlzIGxlZCBtZSBv biB0byB0aGlua2luZyB0aGF0IHRoZSB1c2UgY2FzZSB3b3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIGludGVyZXN0aW5n DQo+IGlmIGl0IGFsc28gc2hvd2VkIGhvdyB0aGUgQ0UgYWN0dWFsbHkgcHV0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9u IGludG8gdGhlDQo+IEVuY2FwVGFibGUgYW5kIGhvdyBFdGhlckVuY2FwIHVzZXMgdGhhdCB0YWJs ZS4NCg0KT2ssIGxldCB1cyBhZGQgc29tZSB0ZXh0IGF0IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgU2VjdGlvbiA3LjEg dGhlIHVzZSBjYXNlIGZvciBJUHY0IGZvcndhcmRpbmcgdG8gaW5kaWNhdGUgaG93IEVuY2FwIExG QiB3b3JrcyBpbnNpZGUuIA0KDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0NCg0KSSBob3BlIHRvIHB1dCB0aGUgSUFOQSBy ZWxhdGVkIHRvIGEgc3BlY2lmaWMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgd2l0aCB0aGUgaGVscCBvZiBkZXNpZ25h dGVkIGV4cGVydCBvZiBJQU5BIHRvIHNvbHZlIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMgOikgDQoNClRoYW5rcyBhIGxv dC4NCg0KPiANCj4gU2VjdGlvbnMgMTAuMiwgMTAuMywgMTAuNA0KPiANCj4gIFdoeSBoYXZlIHlv dSBjaG9zZW4gIlNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gUmVxdWlyZWQiIGluc3RlYWQgb2Ygc29tZXRoaW5nIHRo YXQNCj4gIHJlcXVpcmVzIHRoZSB3b3JrIHRvIGJlIGRvbmUgaW5zaWRlIHRoZSBJRVRGPyAoSSBr bm93IHRoYXQgdGhlDQo+ICBkZXNpZ25hdGVkIGV4cGVydCB3aWxsIGhlbHAgdG8ga2VlcCBjb250 cm9sIG9mIHRoaXMsIGJ1dCBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UNCj4gIHRvIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgd2h5IHlvdSBm ZWVsIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgb3BlbmVkIHVwIGluIHRoaXMgd2F5Lg0KPiANCj4gLS0t DQo+IA0KPiBTZWN0aW9ucyAxMC4yLCAxMC4zLCAxMC40DQo+IA0KPiAgIE1ldGFkYXRhIElEIDB4 ODAwMDAwMDAtMHhGRkZGRkZGRg0KPiAgICAgIE1ldGFkYXRhIElEcyBpbiB0aGlzIHJhbmdlIGFy ZSByZXNlcnZlZCBmb3IgdmVuZG9yIHByaXZhdGUNCj4gICAgICBleHRlbnNpb25zIGFuZCBhcmUg dGhlIHJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXR5IG9mIGluZGl2aWR1YWxzLg0KPiANCj4gLi4uZXRjLg0KPiANCj4g WW91IHNob3VsZCBleHByZXNzIHRoaXMgaW4gUkZDIDUyMjYgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgKGkuZS4sICJQcml2 YXRlIFVzZSIpLg0KPiANCj4gR2VuZXJhbGx5IEkgZG9uJ3QgbGlrZSAiUHJpdmF0ZSBVc2UiIGRl ZmluaXRpb25zIGluIHRoZSByb3V0aW5nIGFyZWEsIA0KPiBidXQgSSBzdXBwb3NlIHdlIGNhbiBh cmd1ZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgaXMgcmVhbGx5IGFuIG1hbmFnZW1lbnQvYXBwbGljYXRpb24NCj4gbGF5 ZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wgYW5kIHBhc3Mgb24gdGhhdC4gYnV0IEkgYW0gYSBsaXR0bGUgZGlzYXBwb2lu dGVkIHRoYXQgDQo+IHRoZXJlIGlzIHZlcnkgbGl0dGxlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb2YgdGhlIHVzZSBv ZiBwcml2YXRlIHZhbHVlcy4gNS40LjEuMSBhbmQNCj4gNS40LjIuMSBtYWtlIG1lbnRpb24sIGJ1 dCBvbmx5IHRvIHN1Z2dlc3QgbG9va2luZyBpbiB0aGUgSUFOQSANCj4gQ29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMg c2VjdGlvbiBmb3IgbW9yZSBkZXRhaWxzICh3aGljaCBkbyBub3QgZXhpc3QpLiBJIHdvdWxkDQo+ IGFsc28gaGF2ZSB0aG91Z2h0IHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgYXJlIFNlY3VyaXR5IGltcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBv ZiB0aGUgdXNlIG9mDQo+ICJQcml2YXRlIFVzZSIgdmFsdWVzLg0KPiANCj4gTW9yZSB0ZXh0LCBw bGVhc2UuDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fXw0KPiBmb3JjZXMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IGZvcmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczov L3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2ZvcmNlcw0KPg== From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Dec 14 08:30:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA62721F8930 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:30:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.752 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.819, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4wzWRsKcmE2K for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:30:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D154621F88C5 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:30:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBEGU7E3028509; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:30:07 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBEGU6iZ028482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:30:07 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Wang,Weiming'" , References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:30:04 -0000 Message-ID: <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQF787jBBC6SSIhTbRAnSzAk/1KE5gLCEi9FmKYwDZA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:30:09 -0000 Hi Weiming... [snip - reduced to issues needing further discussion] > > I am really uneasy about you using an enumeration for LANSpeedType. > > There are three concerns: > > - this is not future-proofed without needing to revise the LFB > > - this does not cover all existing Ethernet interface types currently > > available (e.g., wifi, etc., etc.) > > - you cannot slot new values into the list and keep them well-ordered > > > > You might claim to get away with this by stating (as you do in 3.1 and > > 5.1) that this library only supports copper media. But I don't see how > > you will extend to other media. Will you introduce a whole new structure > > in parallel for other media? Not to mention other L2 encapsulations. > > > > None of this seems very forward-looking. > > I think it is a relatively tough and important issue. The question may be > summarized as: 1) do we have other better data structure than enumaration for > describing a LAN speed ? 2) if no, do we have better enumaration method with > more extesibility and flexibility? > > Authors pls contribute more thoughts, thanks. Have a look at ifSpeed in ifTable in RFC 1213 Also consider MplsBitRate in RFC 3811 and section 3.1.2 of RFC 3471. > > A bit odd to define the SchdDisciplineType atomic data type given that > > it only has one possible setting defined. > > We do had discussions when we designed this element. We just thought that > although now it only sets Round Robin as the default and the only strategy, > future extension might contain more types of scheduling strategies. OK. Maybe add a note? > > Looking at the stats I see they use simple integer types. Indeed you > > don't have atomic types for counters. But I can't find anywhere in the > > document that talks about what happens when counters wrap or how to > > record a discontinuity. > > Maybe defining a specific atomic counter with full definition on wrap and other > properties is a very good treatment. Lets follow to discuss. Thanks. Again. Suggest to look at what MIB and YANG modules do for wrapping counters, fast counters (that need 64 bits), and discontinuities. > > In 4.4 in IPv4PrefixTableInfo, what is this all about... > > > > > > Reserved > > Reserved for future use > > uchar > > > > > > Actually, I see several similar (e.g. in VlanInputTableEntryType) > > > > If this is an extensible format (I thought it was) why do you have > > reserved fields? > > Pls see response from Jamal on this question. thanks. I meant to pick this up from Jamal's email, but forgot to come back to it. Surely the rules in RFC 5810 take care of all packing and padding that is necessary? > > Section 5.3.1 > > > > This LFB also provides facilities to support users to implement > > equal-cost multi-path routing (ECMP) or reverse path forwarding > > (RPF). However, this LFB itself does not provide ECMP or RPF. To > > fully implement ECMP or RPF, additional specific LFBs, like a > > specific ECMP LFB or an RPF LFB, will have to be defined. This work > > may be done in the future version of the document. > > > > I guess it won't :-) > > So, lets just remove the text of the last sentense ? Agree Thanks, Adrian From joel@stevecrocker.com Fri Dec 14 08:44:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B11F21F89B9 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:44:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IL8t2btZslHh for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:44:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4112621F89AF for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:43:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from dummy.name; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:46:59 +0000 Message-ID: <50CB5748.2060905@stevecrocker.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:43:52 -0500 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:44:07 -0000 With regard to attribute packing and reserved fields: On 12/14/2012 11:30 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Surely the rules in RFC 5810 take care of all packing and padding that is > necessary? In one sense, the answer is absolutely. The rules in 5810 produce a clear format, and one that can be generated, shipped, received, and processed. However, in laying out those rules we did not worry at all about the efficiency of such processing. Jamal has pointed out that adding the reserved fields makes the processing significantly more efficient. The question I am still of two minds on (but was willing to include in the spec), is whether that is a sufficient reason to add the noisy reserved fields to the definitions. Yours, Joel From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sat Dec 15 13:02:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59BB321F84EE for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:02:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Yo51SSMmFxi for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:02:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAC521F849A for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:02:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBFL2poI006866; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:02:52 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBFL2pLA006854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:02:51 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Joel'" References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> <50CB5748.2060905@stevecrocker.com> In-Reply-To: <50CB5748.2060905@stevecrocker.com> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:02:49 -0000 Message-ID: <023e01cddb07$8a8f17e0$9fad47a0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQF787jBBC6SSIhTbRAnSzAk/1KE5gLCEi9FAqcz7JkBiyOntpiGgtCQ Content-Language: en-gb Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:02:54 -0000 Hi, I guess I should go and read 5810, but why do that when I can simply ask you the question? :-) I'm confused by your answer, Joel. My question was not whether 5810 is unambiguous, but about whether it takes care of padding and packing. That is, does 5810 pad single byte field up to multi-byte boundaries, or does the next data field run on immediately after the single byte? If the former, I don't see how this reserved field helps or is needed. If not then I wonder if the problem isn't in the protocol encoding rather than in the LFB (of course, fixing the protocol encoding now might be a bit tough if we want to retain b/w compatibility!) A > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com] > Sent: 14 December 2012 16:44 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org; forces@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib > > With regard to attribute packing and reserved fields: > > On 12/14/2012 11:30 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Surely the rules in RFC 5810 take care of all packing and padding that is > > necessary? > > In one sense, the answer is absolutely. The rules in 5810 produce a > clear format, and one that can be generated, shipped, received, and > processed. However, in laying out those rules we did not worry at all > about the efficiency of such processing. > Jamal has pointed out that adding the reserved fields makes the > processing significantly more efficient. > > The question I am still of two minds on (but was willing to include in > the spec), is whether that is a sufficient reason to add the noisy > reserved fields to the definitions. > > Yours, > Joel From joel.halpern@ericsson.com Sat Dec 15 15:29:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBB721F84ED for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:29:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46goxY50H5O9 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:29:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FA921F84EB for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:29:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qBFNTYYD015810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:29:36 -0600 Received: from EUSAAMB101.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.118]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:29:35 -0500 From: Joel Halpern To: "joel@stevecrocker.com" , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Thread-Topic: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib Thread-Index: Ac3XM4HVraEtwQBPSfOpULBbOaco9QCz050pAA/XdQAAAHthAAA7VcyA///VL3M= Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:29:34 +0000 Message-ID: <6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603C0AC@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> <50CB5748.2060905@stevecrocker.com>, <023e01cddb07$8a8f17e0$9fad47a0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <023e01cddb07$8a8f17e0$9fad47a0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603C0ACeusaamb101ericsso_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "forces@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:29:39 -0000 --_000_6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603C0ACeusaamb101ericsso_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 5810 has no padding inside the fullsata. Joel Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [adrian@olddog.co.uk] Received: Saturday, 15 Dec 2012, 4:03pm To: 'Joel' [joel@stevecrocker.com] CC: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org [draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib= .all@tools.ietf.org]; forces@ietf.org [forces@ietf.org] Subject: RE: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib Hi, I guess I should go and read 5810, but why do that when I can simply ask yo= u the question? :-) I'm confused by your answer, Joel. My question was not whether 5810 is unambiguous, but about whether it takes= care of padding and packing. That is, does 5810 pad single byte field up to multi-byte boundaries, or do= es the next data field run on immediately after the single byte? If the former, I don't see how this reserved field helps or is needed. If n= ot then I wonder if the problem isn't in the protocol encoding rather than in = the LFB (of course, fixing the protocol encoding now might be a bit tough if we= want to retain b/w compatibility!) A > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com] > Sent: 14 December 2012 16:44 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org; forces@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib > > With regard to attribute packing and reserved fields: > > On 12/14/2012 11:30 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Surely the rules in RFC 5810 take care of all packing and padding that = is > > necessary? > > In one sense, the answer is absolutely. The rules in 5810 produce a > clear format, and one that can be generated, shipped, received, and > processed. However, in laying out those rules we did not worry at all > about the efficiency of such processing. > Jamal has pointed out that adding the reserved fields makes the > processing significantly more efficient. > > The question I am still of two minds on (but was willing to include in > the spec), is whether that is a sufficient reason to add the noisy > reserved fields to the definitions. > > Yours, > Joel --_000_6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603C0ACeusaamb101ericsso_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
5810 has no padding inside the fullsata.
Joel

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Received: Saturday, 15 Dec 2012, 4:03pm
To: 'Joel' [joel@stevecrocker.com]
CC: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org [draft-ietf-forces-= lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org]; forces@ietf.org [forces@ietf.org]
Subject: RE: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib

Hi,

I guess I should go and read 5810, but why do that when I can simply ask yo= u the
question? :-)

I'm confused by your answer, Joel.

My question was not whether 5810 is unambiguous, but about whether it takes= care
of padding and packing.

That is, does 5810 pad single byte field up to multi-byte boundaries, or do= es
the next data field run on immediately after the single byte?

If the former, I don't see how this reserved field helps or is needed. If n= ot
then I wonder if the problem isn't in the protocol encoding rather than in = the
LFB (of course, fixing the protocol encoding now might be a bit tough if we= want
to retain b/w compatibility!)

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel [mailto:joel@steve= crocker.com]
> Sent: 14 December 2012 16:44
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org; forces@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib
>
> With regard to attribute packing and reserved fields:
>
> On 12/14/2012 11:30 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Surely the rules in RFC 5810 take care of all packing and padding= that is
> > necessary?
>
> In one sense, the answer is absolutely.  The rules in 5810 produc= e a
> clear format, and one that can be generated, shipped, received, and > processed.  However, in laying out those rules we did not worry a= t all
> about the efficiency of such processing.
> Jamal has pointed out that adding the reserved fields makes the
> processing significantly more efficient.
>
> The question I am still of two minds on (but was willing to include in=
> the spec), is whether that is a sufficient reason to add the noisy
> reserved fields to the definitions.
>
> Yours,
> Joel

 --_000_6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603C0ACeusaamb101ericsso_-- From chuanhuang_li@hotmail.com Sun Dec 16 07:48:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1FA21F87D2 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:48:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id luY-k+advC9M for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:48:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from snt0-omc4-s37.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc4-s37.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5209221F87D1 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:48:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from SNT134-W40 ([65.55.90.199]) by snt0-omc4-s37.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:48:43 -0800 X-EIP: [j7MhdCzPwCNGypInvbqJShuj9K/TB0+B] X-Originating-Email: [chuanhuang_li@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_4202d25c-002d-4a68-9a5d-af3942c4d0da_" From: Chuanhuang Li To: , WM Wang , Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:48:43 +0800 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk>, , <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2012 15:48:43.0754 (UTC) FILETIME=[D3C38CA0:01CDDBA4] Cc: "forces@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:48:54 -0000 --_4202d25c-002d-4a68-9a5d-af3942c4d0da_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Adrian and All >> > I am really uneasy about you using an enumeration for LANSpeedType. >> > There are three concerns: >> > - this is not future-proofed without needing to revise the LFB >> > - this does not cover all existing Ethernet interface types currently >> > available (e.g., wifi, etc., etc.) >> > - you cannot slot new values into the list and keep them well-ordered >> > >> > You might claim to get away with this by stating (as you do in 3.1 and >> > 5.1) that this library only supports copper media. But I don't see how >> > you will extend to other media. Will you introduce a whole new structure >> > in parallel for other media? Not to mention other L2 encapsulations. >> > >> > None of this seems very forward-looking. >> >> I think it is a relatively tough and important issue. The question may be >> summarized as: 1) do we have other better data structure than enumaration for >> describing a LAN speed ? 2) if no, do we have better enumaration method with >> more extesibility and flexibility? >> >> Authors pls contribute more thoughts, thanks. > >Have a look at ifSpeed in ifTable in RFC 1213 > >Also consider MplsBitRate in RFC 3811 and section 3.1.2 of RFC 3471. Our definition may be somewhat different with MIB. 'AdminLinkSpeed' (read-write) and 'OperLinkSpeed' (read-only) are defined in EtherPHYCop LFB. So the configuring information 'LAN_SPEED_AUTO' need to be included. We also add 'LAN_SPEED_NONE' to indicate 'Nothing is connected'. As you know, we can't enumarate all of the possible ethernet speed type. We just list some typical values in ehternet with copper. Exactly, RFC 3471 also used the enumaration format. If we don't use enumaration method, and just use the real value to represent the speed type, we may need a way to speify the 'LAN_SPEED_AUTO' configuring mode. Do Jamal and other authors have any thoughts? Thanks! >> > Looking at the stats I see they use simple integer types. Indeed you >> > don't have atomic types for counters. But I can't find anywhere in the >> > document that talks about what happens when counters wrap or how to >> > record a discontinuity. >> >> Maybe defining a specific atomic counter with full definition on wrap and >other >> properties is a very good treatment. Lets follow to discuss. Thanks. > >Again. Suggest to look at what MIB and YANG modules do for wrapping counters, >fast counters (that need 64 bits), and discontinuities. 'uint64' is a built-in atomic type in RFC5812. There are no range restrictions and special enumerated values in the statistic information type, so we havn't defined a new atomic type. Indeed there is no place to mention 'counter' in current lfb lib. If we think this is an implementation-specific problem, can we omit this definitiion? Best regards! Yours, Chuanhuang --_4202d25c-002d-4a68-9a5d-af3942c4d0da_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi, Adrian and All
 
>> > I am really uneasy about you using an enumeration for LANSpeedType.
>> > There are three concerns:
>> > - this is not future-proofed without needing to revise the LFB
>> > - this does not cover all existing Ethernet interface types currently
>> >  available (e.g., wifi, etc., etc.)
>> > - you cannot slot new values into the list and keep them well-ordered
>> >
>> > You might claim to get away with this by stating (as you do in 3.1 and
>> > 5.1) that this library only supports copper media. But I don't see how
>> > you will extend to other media. Will you introduce a whole new structure
>> > in parallel for other media? Not to mention other L2 encapsulations.
>> >
>> > None of this seems very forward-looking.
>>
>> I think it is a relatively tough and important issue. The question may be
>> ; summarized as: 1) do we have other better data structure than enumaration for
>> describing a LAN speed ? 2) if no, do we have better enumaration method with
>> more extesibility and flexibility?
>>
>> Authors pls contribute more thoughts, thanks.
>
>Have a look at ifSpeed in ifTable in RFC 1213
>
>Also consider MplsBitRate in RFC 3811 and section 3.1.2 of RFC 3471.
Our definition may be somewhat different with MIB.  'AdminLinkSpeed' (read-write) and
'OperLinkSpeed' (read-only) are defined in EtherPHYCop LFB.  So the configuring information
'LAN_SPEED_AUTO' need to be included. We also add 'LAN_SPEED_NONE' to indicate 'Nothing
is connected'.
As you know, we can't enumarate all of the possible ethernet speed type. We just list some
typical values in ehternet with copper.
Exactly, RFC 3471 also used the enumaration format.
If we don't use enumaration method, and just use the real value to represent the speed type,
we may need a way to speify the 'LAN_SPEED_AUTO' configuring mode.
Do Jamal and other authors have any thoughts?  Thanks!  

>> > Looking at the stats I see they use simple integer types.  Indeed you
>> > don't have atomic types for counters. But I can't find anywhere in the
>> > document that talks about what happens when counters wrap or how to
>> > record a discontinuity.
>>
>> Maybe defining a specific atomic counter with full definition on wrap and
>other
>> properties is a very good treatment. Lets follow to discuss. Thanks.
>
>Again. Suggest to look at what MIB and YANG modules do for wrapping counters,
>fast counters (that need 64 bits), and discontinuities.
'uint64' is a built-in atomic type in RFC5812.  There are no range restrictions
and special enumerated values in the statistic information type, so we havn't defined
a new atomic type.
Indeed there is no place to mention 'counter' in current lfb lib. If we think this is an
implementation-specific problem, can we omit this definitiion?
Best regards!
Yours,
Chuanhuang
 
 
--_4202d25c-002d-4a68-9a5d-af3942c4d0da_-- From joel@stevecrocker.com Sun Dec 16 09:01:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3416A21F87D7 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:01:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.636 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h4onlrqh5+pL for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F89821F87D1 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from dummy.name; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:04:37 +0000 Message-ID: <50CDFE6A.7070503@stevecrocker.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:01:30 -0500 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuanhuang Li References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk>, , <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "forces@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:01:36 -0000 I tend to prefer the enumeration. The other choice is to us an integer (units of either megabits or 10s of megabits), and reserve 0 for not connected ad -1 for auto. That seems even more awkward to me. Yours, Joel On 12/16/2012 10:48 AM, Chuanhuang Li wrote: > Hi, Adrian and All > > >> > I am really uneasy about you using an enumeration for LANSpeedType. > >> > There are three concerns: > >> > - this is not future-proofed without needing to revise the LFB > >> > - this does not cover all existing Ethernet interface types currently > >> > available (e.g., wifi, etc., etc.) > >> > - you cannot slot new values into the list and keep them well-ordered > >> > > >> > You might claim to get away with this by stating (as you do in 3.1 and > >> > 5.1) that this library only supports copper media. But I don't see how > >> > you will extend to other media. Will you introduce a whole new > structure > >> > in parallel for other media? Not to mention other L2 encapsulations. > >> > > >> > None of this seems very forward-looking. > >> > >> I think it is a relatively tough and important issue. The question > may be > >> ; summarized as: 1) do we have other better data structure than > enumaration for > >> describing a LAN speed ? 2) if no, do we have better enumaration > method with > >> more extesibility and flexibility? > >> > >> Authors pls contribute more thoughts, thanks. > > > >Have a look at ifSpeed in ifTable in RFC 1213 > > > >Also consider MplsBitRate in RFC 3811 and section 3.1.2 of RFC 3471. > Our definition may be somewhat different with MIB. 'AdminLinkSpeed' > (read-write) and > 'OperLinkSpeed' (read-only) are defined in EtherPHYCop LFB. So the > configuring information > 'LAN_SPEED_AUTO' need to be included. We also add 'LAN_SPEED_NONE' to > indicate 'Nothing > is connected'. > As you know, we can't enumarate all of the possible ethernet speed type. > We just list some > typical values in ehternet with copper. > Exactly, RFC 3471 also used the enumaration format. > If we don't use enumaration method, and just use the real value to > represent the speed type, > we may need a way to speify the 'LAN_SPEED_AUTO' configuring mode. > Do Jamal and other authors have any thoughts? Thanks! > > >> > Looking at the stats I see they use simple integer types. Indeed you > >> > don't have atomic types for counters. But I can't find anywhere in the > >> > document that talks about what happens when counters wrap or how to > >> > record a discontinuity. > >> > >> Maybe defining a specific atomic counter with full definition on > wrap and > >other > >> properties is a very good treatment. Lets follow to discuss. Thanks. > > > >Again. Suggest to look at what MIB and YANG modules do for wrapping > counters, > >fast counters (that need 64 bits), and discontinuities. > 'uint64' is a built-in atomic type in RFC5812. There are no range > restrictions > and special enumerated values in the statistic information type, so we > havn't defined > a new atomic type. > Indeed there is no place to mention 'counter' in current lfb lib. If we > think this is an > implementation-specific problem, can we omit this definitiion? > Best regards! > Yours, > Chuanhuang > > > > > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Sun Dec 16 19:09:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7307F21F851C for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:09:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.093 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.939, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqTR-riWW27D for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:09:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc2-s19.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s19.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C80821F851B for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:09:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP356 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s19.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:09:23 -0800 X-EIP: [7ejdgDJNn12beBwfjCgm0wOTJWZu9K2E] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from ZJGSUIEE ([221.12.10.218]) by BLU0-SMTP356.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:09:19 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: "Joel Halpern" , References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk><010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk><50CB5748.2060905@stevecrocker.com>, <023e01cddb07$8a8f17e0$9fad47a0$@olddog.co.uk> <6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603C0AC@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:09:29 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2012 03:09:22.0477 (UTC) FILETIME=[E98A25D0:01CDDC03] Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [forces] AD review issue 1: necessity of reserved fields X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:09:27 -0000 SW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gZm9sbG93IGRpc2N1c3Npb25zIGFuZCBteSBkb2N1bWVudCB1cGRhdGUgd29y ayBsYXRlciBhY2NvcmRpbmdseSwgSSd2IHJlbmFtZWQgdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UgbmFtZSBhbmQgd2ls bCBmb2xsb3cgaXQgdGlsbCByZXNvbHZlZC4gRm9yIGVhc2Ugb2YgY29sbGVjdGluZyBpbmZvcm1h dGlvbiwgSSd2IGFsc28gaW5jbHVkZWQgYSBKYW1hbCdzIHJlc3BvbnNlIGluc2lkZS4gDQoNCnRo YW5rcywNCldlaW1pbmcNCg0KLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSANCkZyb206IEpv ZWwgSGFscGVybiANClRvOiBqb2VsQHN0ZXZlY3JvY2tlci5jb20gOyBhZHJpYW5Ab2xkZG9nLmNv LnVrIA0KQ2M6IGZvcmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyA7IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZm9yY2VzLWxmYi1saWIuYWxs QHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnIA0KU2VudDogU3VuZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAxNiwgMjAxMiA3OjI5IEFN DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbU1BBTV0gUmU6IFtmb3JjZXNdIEFEIHJldmlldyBvZiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWZv cmNlcy1sZmItbGliDQoNCg0KNTgxMCBoYXMgbm8gcGFkZGluZyBpbnNpZGUgdGhlIGZ1bGxzYXRh Lg0KSm9lbA0KDQpTZW50IGZyb20gbXkgQW5kcm9pZCBwaG9uZSB1c2luZyBUb3VjaERvd24gKHd3 dy5uaXRyb2Rlc2suY29tKQ0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLSANCkZyb206IEFk cmlhbiBGYXJyZWwgW2FkcmlhbkBvbGRkb2cuY28udWtdDQpSZWNlaXZlZDogU2F0dXJkYXksIDE1 IERlYyAyMDEyLCA0OjAzcG0NClRvOiAnSm9lbCcgW2pvZWxAc3RldmVjcm9ja2VyLmNvbV0NCkND OiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWZvcmNlcy1sZmItbGliLmFsbEB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZyBbZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1mb3JjZXMtbGZiLWxpYi5hbGxAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmddOyBmb3JjZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW2Zv cmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBbZm9yY2VzXSBBRCByZXZpZXcgb2YgZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1mb3JjZXMtbGZiLWxpYg0KDQoNCkhpLA0KDQpJIGd1ZXNzIEkgc2hvdWxkIGdvIGFuZCBy ZWFkIDU4MTAsIGJ1dCB3aHkgZG8gdGhhdCB3aGVuIEkgY2FuIHNpbXBseSBhc2sgeW91IHRoZQ0K cXVlc3Rpb24/IDotKQ0KDQpJJ20gY29uZnVzZWQgYnkgeW91ciBhbnN3ZXIsIEpvZWwuDQoNCk15 IHF1ZXN0aW9uIHdhcyBub3Qgd2hldGhlciA1ODEwIGlzIHVuYW1iaWd1b3VzLCBidXQgYWJvdXQg d2hldGhlciBpdCB0YWtlcyBjYXJlDQpvZiBwYWRkaW5nIGFuZCBwYWNraW5nLg0KDQpUaGF0IGlz LCBkb2VzIDU4MTAgcGFkIHNpbmdsZSBieXRlIGZpZWxkIHVwIHRvIG11bHRpLWJ5dGUgYm91bmRh cmllcywgb3IgZG9lcw0KdGhlIG5leHQgZGF0YSBmaWVsZCBydW4gb24gaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkgYWZ0 ZXIgdGhlIHNpbmdsZSBieXRlPw0KDQpJZiB0aGUgZm9ybWVyLCBJIGRvbid0IHNlZSBob3cgdGhp cyByZXNlcnZlZCBmaWVsZCBoZWxwcyBvciBpcyBuZWVkZWQuIElmIG5vdA0KdGhlbiBJIHdvbmRl ciBpZiB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBpc24ndCBpbiB0aGUgcHJvdG9jb2wgZW5jb2RpbmcgcmF0aGVyIHRo YW4gaW4gdGhlDQpMRkIgKG9mIGNvdXJzZSwgZml4aW5nIHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBlbmNvZGluZyBu b3cgbWlnaHQgYmUgYSBiaXQgdG91Z2ggaWYgd2Ugd2FudA0KdG8gcmV0YWluIGIvdyBjb21wYXRp YmlsaXR5ISkNCg0KQQ0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IEpv ZWwgW21haWx0bzpqb2VsQHN0ZXZlY3JvY2tlci5jb21dDQo+IFNlbnQ6IDE0IERlY2VtYmVyIDIw MTIgMTY6NDQNCj4gVG86IGFkcmlhbkBvbGRkb2cuY28udWsNCj4gQ2M6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZm9y Y2VzLWxmYi1saWIuYWxsQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnOyBmb3JjZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVj dDogUmU6IFtmb3JjZXNdIEFEIHJldmlldyBvZiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWZvcmNlcy1sZmItbGliDQo+ IA0KPiBXaXRoIHJlZ2FyZCB0byBhdHRyaWJ1dGUgcGFja2luZyBhbmQgcmVzZXJ2ZWQgZmllbGRz Og0KPiANCj4gT24gMTIvMTQvMjAxMiAxMTozMCBBTSwgQWRyaWFuIEZhcnJlbCB3cm90ZToNCj4g PiBTdXJlbHkgdGhlIHJ1bGVzIGluIFJGQyA1ODEwIHRha2UgY2FyZSBvZiBhbGwgcGFja2luZyBh bmQgcGFkZGluZyB0aGF0IGlzDQo+ID4gbmVjZXNzYXJ5Pw0KPiANCj4gSW4gb25lIHNlbnNlLCB0 aGUgYW5zd2VyIGlzIGFic29sdXRlbHkuICBUaGUgcnVsZXMgaW4gNTgxMCBwcm9kdWNlIGENCj4g Y2xlYXIgZm9ybWF0LCBhbmQgb25lIHRoYXQgY2FuIGJlIGdlbmVyYXRlZCwgc2hpcHBlZCwgcmVj ZWl2ZWQsIGFuZA0KPiBwcm9jZXNzZWQuICBIb3dldmVyLCBpbiBsYXlpbmcgb3V0IHRob3NlIHJ1 bGVzIHdlIGRpZCBub3Qgd29ycnkgYXQgYWxsDQo+IGFib3V0IHRoZSBlZmZpY2llbmN5IG9mIHN1 Y2ggcHJvY2Vzc2luZy4NCj4gSmFtYWwgaGFzIHBvaW50ZWQgb3V0IHRoYXQgYWRkaW5nIHRoZSBy ZXNlcnZlZCBmaWVsZHMgbWFrZXMgdGhlDQo+IHByb2Nlc3Npbmcgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnRseSBtb3Jl IGVmZmljaWVudC4NCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBJIGFtIHN0aWxsIG9mIHR3byBtaW5kcyBv biAoYnV0IHdhcyB3aWxsaW5nIHRvIGluY2x1ZGUgaW4NCj4gdGhlIHNwZWMpLCBpcyB3aGV0aGVy IHRoYXQgaXMgYSBzdWZmaWNpZW50IHJlYXNvbiB0byBhZGQgdGhlIG5vaXN5DQo+IHJlc2VydmVk IGZpZWxkcyB0byB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbnMuDQo+IA0KPiBZb3VycywNCj4gSm9lbA0KDQotLS0t LS0tLS0tIEZvcndhcmRlZCBtZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IEphbWFsIEhhZGkgU2Fs aW0gPGhhZGlAbW9qYXRhdHUuY29tPg0KRGF0ZTogVHVlLCBEZWMgMTEsIDIwMTIgYXQgODozMCBB TQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IElEIFRyYWNrZXIgU3RhdGUgVXBkYXRlIE5vdGljZTogPGRyYWZ0LWll dGYtZm9yY2VzLWxmYi1saWItMDkudHh0Pg0KVG86IElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQgPGlldGYtc2Vj cmV0YXJpYXQtcmVwbHlAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpDYzogZm9yY2VzLWNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9y ZywgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1mb3JjZXMtbGZiLWxpYkB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZw0KDQoNCkV4Y2VsbGVu dCByZXZpZXcgQWRyaWFuIC0gYW5kIHlvdSBtYWRlIG15IGpvYiBhcyBzaGVwaGVyZCBlYXNpZXIg YnkgcG9zdGluZw0Kb24gdGhlIGxpc3QgKEkgZG9udCBoYXZlIHRvIGdvIGNoYXNlIHRoZSBhdXRo b3JzIDstPiBJIHNlZSB0aGV5IHBpY2tlZA0KaXQgdXAgYWxyZWFkeSkuDQoNCk9uIE1vbiwgRGVj IDEwLCAyMDEyIGF0IDc6MDYgUE0sIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCjxpZXRmLXNlY3JldGFyaWF0 LXJlcGx5QGlldGYub3JnPiB3cm90ZToNCj4NCj4gSW4gNC40IGluIElQdjRQcmVmaXhUYWJsZUlu Zm8sIHdoYXQgaXMgdGhpcyBhbGwgYWJvdXQuLi4NCj4NCj4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFJl c2VydmVkDQo+ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBSZXNlcnZlZCBmb3IgZnV0dXJlIHVzZQ0KPiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgdWNoYXINCj4NCj4NCj4gQWN0dWFsbHksIEkgc2VlIHNldmVyYWwgc2ltaWxh ciAoZS5nLiBpbiBWbGFuSW5wdXRUYWJsZUVudHJ5VHlwZSkNCj4NCj4gSWYgdGhpcyBpcyBhbiBl eHRlbnNpYmxlIGZvcm1hdCAoSSB0aG91Z2h0IGl0IHdhcykgd2h5IGRvIHlvdSBoYXZlDQo+IHJl c2VydmVkIGZpZWxkcz8NCj4NCg0KSSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoaXMgd2FzIG15IHN1Z2dlc3Rpb24gYmFz ZWQgb24gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gZXhwZXJpZW5jZSBvZg0KdGhlc2UgTEZCcy4NClRoZSBpZGVh IGlzIHRvIGVuc3VyZSB0aGF0IGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgaXMgMzIgYml0IGFsaWduZWQuIFRoZSBwcm90 b2NvbCByZXF1aXJlcw0KdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIDMyIGJpdCBhbGlnbm1lbnQgYW5kIHRob3NlIHNw ZWNpZmljIHRoaW5ncyB5b3UgYXJlIGxvb2tpbmcNCmF0IGxhYmVsbGVkIGFzICJyZXNlcnZlZCIg aGF2ZSAiaG9sZXMiIHdoaWNoIHdpbGwgZW5kIHVwIGJlaW5nIHBhZGRlZCB0bw0KbWVldCB0aGF0 IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IChhbmQgc28gdGhleSBjYW4gYmUgcHJvcGVybHkgcGFyc2VkIGF0IHRoZSBy ZWNlaXZlcikuDQpJIHN1Z2dlc3RlZCB0aGV5IGJlIGxhYmVsbGVkIGFzICJyZXNlcnZlZCIgdG8g bWFrZSB0aGVtIHZpc2libGUuDQog From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Sun Dec 16 19:15:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAF821F8533 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:15:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.613 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FhefQlJJyXnj for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc2-s19.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s19.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B878D21F852D for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP450 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s19.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:15:01 -0800 X-EIP: [+ROEWz5Lp9YTTF8fIOx/ZtLvQmfqmO4Q] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from ZJGSUIEE ([221.12.10.218]) by BLU0-SMTP450.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:14:59 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: "Joel" , "Chuanhuang Li" References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk>, , <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> <50CDFE6A.7070503@stevecrocker.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:15:15 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2012 03:14:59.0516 (UTC) FILETIME=[B26E37C0:01CDDC04] Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [forces] AD review issue 2: On LAN speed definition and whether using stat counter type X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:15:02 -0000 UGxzIGZvbGxvdyB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2Ugb24gZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvbiB0aGlzIGlzc3VlLiANCg0K VGhhbmtzLFdlaW1pbmcNCg0KLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSANCkZyb206ICJK b2VsIiA8am9lbEBzdGV2ZWNyb2NrZXIuY29tPg0KVG86ICJDaHVhbmh1YW5nIExpIiA8Y2h1YW5o dWFuZ19saUBob3RtYWlsLmNvbT4NCkNjOiA8Zm9yY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPjsgPGRyYWZ0LWlldGYt Zm9yY2VzLWxmYi1saWIuYWxsQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnPg0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJl ciAxNywgMjAxMiAxOjAxIEFNDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2ZvcmNlc10gQUQgcmV2aWV3IG9mIGRy YWZ0LWlldGYtZm9yY2VzLWxmYi1saWINCg0KDQo+SSB0ZW5kIHRvIHByZWZlciB0aGUgZW51bWVy YXRpb24uDQo+IFRoZSBvdGhlciBjaG9pY2UgaXMgdG8gdXMgYW4gaW50ZWdlciAodW5pdHMgb2Yg ZWl0aGVyIG1lZ2FiaXRzIG9yIDEwcyBvZiANCj4gbWVnYWJpdHMpLCBhbmQgcmVzZXJ2ZSAwIGZv ciBub3QgY29ubmVjdGVkIGFkIC0xIGZvciBhdXRvLiAgVGhhdCBzZWVtcyANCj4gZXZlbiBtb3Jl IGF3a3dhcmQgdG8gbWUuDQo+IA0KPiBZb3VycywNCj4gSm9lbA0KPiANCj4gT24gMTIvMTYvMjAx MiAxMDo0OCBBTSwgQ2h1YW5odWFuZyBMaSB3cm90ZToNCj4+IEhpLCBBZHJpYW4gYW5kIEFsbA0K Pj4NCj4+ICA+PiA+IEkgYW0gcmVhbGx5IHVuZWFzeSBhYm91dCB5b3UgdXNpbmcgYW4gZW51bWVy YXRpb24gZm9yIExBTlNwZWVkVHlwZS4NCj4+ICA+PiA+IFRoZXJlIGFyZSB0aHJlZSBjb25jZXJu czoNCj4+ICA+PiA+IC0gdGhpcyBpcyBub3QgZnV0dXJlLXByb29mZWQgd2l0aG91dCBuZWVkaW5n IHRvIHJldmlzZSB0aGUgTEZCDQo+PiAgPj4gPiAtIHRoaXMgZG9lcyBub3QgY292ZXIgYWxsIGV4 aXN0aW5nIEV0aGVybmV0IGludGVyZmFjZSB0eXBlcyBjdXJyZW50bHkNCj4+ICA+PiA+ICBhdmFp bGFibGUgKGUuZy4sIHdpZmksIGV0Yy4sIGV0Yy4pDQo+PiAgPj4gPiAtIHlvdSBjYW5ub3Qgc2xv dCBuZXcgdmFsdWVzIGludG8gdGhlIGxpc3QgYW5kIGtlZXAgdGhlbSB3ZWxsLW9yZGVyZWQNCj4+ ICA+PiA+DQo+PiAgPj4gPiBZb3UgbWlnaHQgY2xhaW0gdG8gZ2V0IGF3YXkgd2l0aCB0aGlzIGJ5 IHN0YXRpbmcgKGFzIHlvdSBkbyBpbiAzLjEgYW5kDQo+PiAgPj4gPiA1LjEpIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBs aWJyYXJ5IG9ubHkgc3VwcG9ydHMgY29wcGVyIG1lZGlhLiBCdXQgSSBkb24ndCBzZWUgaG93DQo+ PiAgPj4gPiB5b3Ugd2lsbCBleHRlbmQgdG8gb3RoZXIgbWVkaWEuIFdpbGwgeW91IGludHJvZHVj ZSBhIHdob2xlIG5ldw0KPj4gc3RydWN0dXJlDQo+PiAgPj4gPiBpbiBwYXJhbGxlbCBmb3Igb3Ro ZXIgbWVkaWE/IE5vdCB0byBtZW50aW9uIG90aGVyIEwyIGVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpb25zLg0KPj4gID4+ ID4NCj4+ICA+PiA+IE5vbmUgb2YgdGhpcyBzZWVtcyB2ZXJ5IGZvcndhcmQtbG9va2luZy4NCj4+ ICA+Pg0KPj4gID4+IEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgaXMgYSByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IHRvdWdoIGFuZCBpbXBvcnRh bnQgaXNzdWUuIFRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbg0KPj4gbWF5IGJlDQo+PiAgPj4gOyBzdW1tYXJpemVkIGFz OiAxKSBkbyB3ZSBoYXZlIG90aGVyIGJldHRlciBkYXRhIHN0cnVjdHVyZSB0aGFuDQo+PiBlbnVt YXJhdGlvbiBmb3INCj4+ICA+PiBkZXNjcmliaW5nIGEgTEFOIHNwZWVkID8gMikgaWYgbm8sIGRv IHdlIGhhdmUgYmV0dGVyIGVudW1hcmF0aW9uDQo+PiBtZXRob2Qgd2l0aA0KPj4gID4+IG1vcmUg ZXh0ZXNpYmlsaXR5IGFuZCBmbGV4aWJpbGl0eT8NCj4+ICA+Pg0KPj4gID4+IEF1dGhvcnMgcGxz IGNvbnRyaWJ1dGUgbW9yZSB0aG91Z2h0cywgdGhhbmtzLg0KPj4gID4NCj4+ICA+SGF2ZSBhIGxv b2sgYXQgaWZTcGVlZCBpbiBpZlRhYmxlIGluIFJGQyAxMjEzDQo+PiAgPg0KPj4gID5BbHNvIGNv bnNpZGVyIE1wbHNCaXRSYXRlIGluIFJGQyAzODExIGFuZCBzZWN0aW9uIDMuMS4yIG9mIFJGQyAz NDcxLg0KPj4gT3VyIGRlZmluaXRpb24gbWF5IGJlIHNvbWV3aGF0IGRpZmZlcmVudCB3aXRoIE1J Qi4gICdBZG1pbkxpbmtTcGVlZCcNCj4+IChyZWFkLXdyaXRlKSBhbmQNCj4+ICdPcGVyTGlua1Nw ZWVkJyAocmVhZC1vbmx5KSBhcmUgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBFdGhlclBIWUNvcCBMRkIuICBTbyB0aGUN Cj4+IGNvbmZpZ3VyaW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uDQo+PiAnTEFOX1NQRUVEX0FVVE8nIG5lZWQgdG8g YmUgaW5jbHVkZWQuIFdlIGFsc28gYWRkICdMQU5fU1BFRURfTk9ORScgdG8NCj4+IGluZGljYXRl ICdOb3RoaW5nDQo+PiBpcyBjb25uZWN0ZWQnLg0KPj4gQXMgeW91IGtub3csIHdlIGNhbid0IGVu dW1hcmF0ZSBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIHBvc3NpYmxlIGV0aGVybmV0IHNwZWVkIHR5cGUuDQo+PiBXZSBq dXN0IGxpc3Qgc29tZQ0KPj4gdHlwaWNhbCB2YWx1ZXMgaW4gZWh0ZXJuZXQgd2l0aCBjb3BwZXIu DQo+PiBFeGFjdGx5LCBSRkMgMzQ3MSBhbHNvIHVzZWQgdGhlIGVudW1hcmF0aW9uIGZvcm1hdC4N Cj4+IElmIHdlIGRvbid0IHVzZSBlbnVtYXJhdGlvbiBtZXRob2QsIGFuZCBqdXN0IHVzZSB0aGUg cmVhbCB2YWx1ZSB0bw0KPj4gcmVwcmVzZW50IHRoZSBzcGVlZCB0eXBlLA0KPj4gd2UgbWF5IG5l ZWQgYSB3YXkgdG8gc3BlaWZ5IHRoZSAnTEFOX1NQRUVEX0FVVE8nIGNvbmZpZ3VyaW5nIG1vZGUu DQo+PiBEbyBKYW1hbCBhbmQgb3RoZXIgYXV0aG9ycyBoYXZlIGFueSB0aG91Z2h0cz8gIFRoYW5r cyENCj4+DQo+PiAgPj4gPiBMb29raW5nIGF0IHRoZSBzdGF0cyBJIHNlZSB0aGV5IHVzZSBzaW1w bGUgaW50ZWdlciB0eXBlcy4gIEluZGVlZCB5b3UNCj4+ICA+PiA+IGRvbid0IGhhdmUgYXRvbWlj IHR5cGVzIGZvciBjb3VudGVycy4gQnV0IEkgY2FuJ3QgZmluZCBhbnl3aGVyZSBpbiB0aGUNCj4+ ICA+PiA+IGRvY3VtZW50IHRoYXQgdGFsa3MgYWJvdXQgd2hhdCBoYXBwZW5zIHdoZW4gY291bnRl cnMgd3JhcCBvciBob3cgdG8NCj4+ICA+PiA+IHJlY29yZCBhIGRpc2NvbnRpbnVpdHkuDQo+PiAg Pj4NCj4+ICA+PiBNYXliZSBkZWZpbmluZyBhIHNwZWNpZmljIGF0b21pYyBjb3VudGVyIHdpdGgg ZnVsbCBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9uDQo+PiB3cmFwIGFuZA0KPj4gID5vdGhlcg0KPj4gID4+IHByb3Bl cnRpZXMgaXMgYSB2ZXJ5IGdvb2QgdHJlYXRtZW50LiBMZXRzIGZvbGxvdyB0byBkaXNjdXNzLiBU aGFua3MuDQo+PiAgPg0KPj4gID5BZ2Fpbi4gU3VnZ2VzdCB0byBsb29rIGF0IHdoYXQgTUlCIGFu ZCBZQU5HIG1vZHVsZXMgZG8gZm9yIHdyYXBwaW5nDQo+PiBjb3VudGVycywNCj4+ICA+ZmFzdCBj b3VudGVycyAodGhhdCBuZWVkIDY0IGJpdHMpLCBhbmQgZGlzY29udGludWl0aWVzLg0KPj4gJ3Vp bnQ2NCcgaXMgYSBidWlsdC1pbiBhdG9taWMgdHlwZSBpbiBSRkM1ODEyLiAgVGhlcmUgYXJlIG5v IHJhbmdlDQo+PiByZXN0cmljdGlvbnMNCj4+IGFuZCBzcGVjaWFsIGVudW1lcmF0ZWQgdmFsdWVz IGluIHRoZSBzdGF0aXN0aWMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdHlwZSwgc28gd2UNCj4+IGhhdm4ndCBkZWZp bmVkDQo+PiBhIG5ldyBhdG9taWMgdHlwZS4NCj4+IEluZGVlZCB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBwbGFjZSB0 byBtZW50aW9uICdjb3VudGVyJyBpbiBjdXJyZW50IGxmYiBsaWIuIElmIHdlDQo+PiB0aGluayB0 aGlzIGlzIGFuDQo+PiBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbi1zcGVjaWZpYyBwcm9ibGVtLCBjYW4gd2Ugb21p dCB0aGlzIGRlZmluaXRpaW9uPw0KPj4gQmVzdCByZWdhcmRzIQ0KPj4gWW91cnMsDQo+PiBDaHVh bmh1YW5nDQog From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Sun Dec 16 19:22:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A157C21F858A for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:22:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.678, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xI4lJ65yUSM4 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:22:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ED721F8587 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:22:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP222 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:22:29 -0800 X-EIP: [cKB3mb6YBSIiFEOoorAzgSv9P+f+thHk] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from ZJGSUIEE ([221.12.10.218]) by BLU0-SMTP222.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:22:27 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: , , "Jamal Hadi Salim" References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:22:20 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2012 03:22:28.0108 (UTC) FILETIME=[BDCFECC0:01CDDC05] Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: [forces] AD review issue 3: on Figure 1 description (Editorial) X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:22:29 -0000 VGhpcyBpcyBhbiBlZGl0b3JpYWwgaXNzdWUuICANCg0KdGhhbmtzLA0KV2VpbWluZyANCg0KPiAt LS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KPiBGcm9tOiAiQWRyaWFuIEZhcnJlbCIgPGFk cmlhbkBvbGRkb2cuY28udWs+DQo+IA0KPj4gLS0tDQo+PiANCj4+IEkgZGlkbid0IGZpbmQgRmln dXJlIDEgdmVyeSBoZWxwZnVsIGF0IHRoaXMgc3RhZ2Ugb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHdpdGgNCj4+ IHplcm8gZGVzY3JpcHRpb24uIEkga25vdyB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBkZWZlciBkZXRhaWxlZCBkaXNj dXNzaW9uIHVudGlsDQo+PiBTZWN0aW9uIDcsIGJ1dCBzb21lIHJlYWxseSBicmllZiBkZXNjcmlw dGlvbiBvZiB3aGF0IHRoZSBmaWd1cmUgY29udGFpbnMNCj4+IHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgaGVscGVkOiB3 aGF0IGFyZSB0aGUgYm94ZXM/IHdoZXJlIGFyZSB0aGUgaW5wdXRzPyB3aGVyZSBhcmUNCj4+IHRo ZSBvdXRwdXRzPyB3aGF0IGlzIHRoZSBzdG9yeSB3aXRoIElQdjYgYW5kIG11bHRpY2FzdD8gZXhw bGFpbiB0aGVyZQ0KPj4gYXJlIG11bHRpcGxlIGludGVyZmFjZXMsIGV0Yy4sIGV0Yy4NCj4+IA0K PiBJIHRoaW5rIHdlIG5lZWQgYSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIGFtb25nIGF1dGhvcnMgYW5kIEphbWFsIG9u IGhvdyB3ZSB0cnkgdG8gZGVwbG95IG5vdGF0aW9ucyBhbmQgaWRlYXMgc3RlcCBieSBzdGVwICBp biB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQuIEknZCB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggbGlrZSB0byBoZWFyIEphbWFsJ3MgdGhvdWdo dC4NCj4gDQo+IEkgdGhpbmsgd2UgbmVlZCBzcGVjaWFsbHkgb3BlbiBhIG1lc3NhZ2UgdG8gc29s dmUgdGhlIGlzc3VlLiANCj4gDQog From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Sun Dec 16 19:34:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E4F21F8727 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:34:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.304 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.542, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Pq3QvdZq5CL for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc4-s6.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s6.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB1E21F869B for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP440 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s6.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:34:09 -0800 X-EIP: [tgkal8DUF1LNS/g/5mYgHbT/vGu8S3fk] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from ZJGSUIEE ([221.12.10.218]) by BLU0-SMTP440.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:34:08 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: , References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:34:24 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2012 03:34:08.0855 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F7D6E70:01CDDC07] Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: [forces] AD review issue 4: on IANA section X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:34:11 -0000 SSBob3BlIHRvIHB1dCB0aGUgSUFOQSByZWxhdGVkIGlzc3VlIHRvIGEgc3BlY2lmaWMgbWVzc2Fn ZSBhbmQgd2l0aCB0aGUgaGVscCBvZiBkZXNpZ25hdGVkIGV4cGVydCBvZiBJQU5BIHRvIHNvbHZl IHRoZSBpc3N1ZS4gVGhhbmtzIGEgbG90Lg0KDQpXZWltaW5nIA0KDQo+IC0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFs IE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0gDQo+IEZyb206ICJBZHJpYW4gRmFycmVsIiA8YWRyaWFuQG9sZGRvZy5j by51az4NCj4gDQo+PiA9PT0NCj4+IA0KPj4gU2VjdGlvbnMgMTAuMiwgMTAuMywgMTAuNA0KPj4g DQo+PiAgV2h5IGhhdmUgeW91IGNob3NlbiAiU3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBSZXF1aXJlZCIgaW5zdGVh ZCBvZiBzb21ldGhpbmcgdGhhdA0KPj4gIHJlcXVpcmVzIHRoZSB3b3JrIHRvIGJlIGRvbmUgaW5z aWRlIHRoZSBJRVRGPyAoSSBrbm93IHRoYXQgdGhlDQo+PiAgZGVzaWduYXRlZCBleHBlcnQgd2ls bCBoZWxwIHRvIGtlZXAgY29udHJvbCBvZiB0aGlzLCBidXQgSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlDQo+PiAgdG8g dW5kZXJzdGFuZCB3aHkgeW91IGZlZWwgdGhhdCB0aGlzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBvcGVuZWQgdXAgaW4g dGhpcyB3YXkuDQo+PiANCj4+IC0tLQ0KPj4gDQo+PiBTZWN0aW9ucyAxMC4yLCAxMC4zLCAxMC40 DQo+PiANCj4+ICAgTWV0YWRhdGEgSUQgMHg4MDAwMDAwMC0weEZGRkZGRkZGDQo+PiAgICAgIE1l dGFkYXRhIElEcyBpbiB0aGlzIHJhbmdlIGFyZSByZXNlcnZlZCBmb3IgdmVuZG9yIHByaXZhdGUN Cj4+ICAgICAgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBhbmQgYXJlIHRoZSByZXNwb25zaWJpbGl0eSBvZiBpbmRpdmlk dWFscy4NCj4+IA0KPj4gLi4uZXRjLg0KPj4gDQo+PiBZb3Ugc2hvdWxkIGV4cHJlc3MgdGhpcyBp biBSRkMgNTIyNiBsYW5ndWFnZSAoaS5lLiwgIlByaXZhdGUgVXNlIikuDQo+PiANCj4+IEdlbmVy YWxseSBJIGRvbid0IGxpa2UgIlByaXZhdGUgVXNlIiBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBpbiB0aGUgcm91dGlu ZyBhcmVhLCANCj4+IGJ1dCBJIHN1cHBvc2Ugd2UgY2FuIGFyZ3VlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBpcyByZWFs bHkgYW4gbWFuYWdlbWVudC9hcHBsaWNhdGlvbg0KPj4gbGF5ZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wgYW5kIHBhc3Mg b24gdGhhdC4gYnV0IEkgYW0gYSBsaXR0bGUgZGlzYXBwb2ludGVkIHRoYXQgDQo+PiB0aGVyZSBp cyB2ZXJ5IGxpdHRsZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgcHJpdmF0ZSB2YWx1ZXMuIDUu NC4xLjEgYW5kDQo+PiA1LjQuMi4xIG1ha2UgbWVudGlvbiwgYnV0IG9ubHkgdG8gc3VnZ2VzdCBs b29raW5nIGluIHRoZSBJQU5BIA0KPj4gQ29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgc2VjdGlvbiBmb3IgbW9yZSBk ZXRhaWxzICh3aGljaCBkbyBub3QgZXhpc3QpLiBJIHdvdWxkDQo+PiBhbHNvIGhhdmUgdGhvdWdo dCB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBTZWN1cml0eSBpbXBsaWNhdGlvbnMgb2YgdGhlIHVzZSBvZg0KPj4g IlByaXZhdGUgVXNlIiB2YWx1ZXMuDQo+PiANCj4+IE1vcmUgdGV4dCwgcGxlYXNlLg0KIA== From joel@stevecrocker.com Sun Dec 16 19:43:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67FD21F850E for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:43:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.315 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.315 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.738, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yT+CmayW2WqQ for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:43:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0D021F850A for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from dummy.name; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:46:41 +0000 Message-ID: <50CE94E4.2060603@stevecrocker.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:43:32 -0500 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review issue 4: on IANA section X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:43:36 -0000 Adrian, I am not sure what your concern is about specification required and private use. By the nature of ForCES, we expect folks to b making p their ow libraries. We hope that they will use standard libraries for standard things, bu they will need proprietary or early ones. (For example, on one project we did an LFB for SSID manipulation.) As such, they need to be able to create metadata IDs. And, f someone does define one in a publicly readable spec, we would rather that other folks sue the same ID for the same semantics, rather than making up yet another metadatum. Yours, Joel On 12/16/2012 10:34 PM, Wang,Weiming wrote: > I hope to put the IANA related issue to a specific message and with the help of designated expert of IANA to solve the issue. Thanks a lot. > > Weiming > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adrian Farrel" >> >>> === >>> >>> Sections 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 >>> >>> Why have you chosen "Specification Required" instead of something that >>> requires the work to be done inside the IETF? (I know that the >>> designated expert will help to keep control of this, but I would like >>> to understand why you feel that this should be opened up in this way. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Sections 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 >>> >>> Metadata ID 0x80000000-0xFFFFFFFF >>> Metadata IDs in this range are reserved for vendor private >>> extensions and are the responsibility of individuals. >>> >>> ...etc. >>> >>> You should express this in RFC 5226 language (i.e., "Private Use"). >>> >>> Generally I don't like "Private Use" definitions in the routing area, >>> but I suppose we can argue that this is really an management/application >>> layer protocol and pass on that. but I am a little disappointed that >>> there is very little discussion of the use of private values. 5.4.1.1 and >>> 5.4.2.1 make mention, but only to suggest looking in the IANA >>> Considerations section for more details (which do not exist). I would >>> also have thought that there are Security implications of the use of >>> "Private Use" values. >>> >>> More text, please. > > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From hadi@mojatatu.com Mon Dec 17 04:07:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9257621F8A90 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:07:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.677 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id elHnWDzvhmOm for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F60121F8A88 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so6901698vbb.31 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:07:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=pRVlxv8zZw3SGfDq/dQKIfmBji1+XhZSi/xt7nUBF4s=; b=bORB3qxZbg7UvXsTR1eoBafecpATmWoEbjetepJO2qfkUnRuXCScGhRzk7hU+Z+7wK a2XrChP/LFUOj2UlBXbcp34wiNZ6E1J+nK7F9BOKuiv1eTmaOV9O/7ZFsGYAoNrCmh/x UjpgbT9nUmkJKbiBPUVMaWIbt2ag9VcltVoEy61CQ/PxYxY7XgEDWlPc5Qvz5+FcKZtS EYwCa+2IEBtVhZcE6gHQ1xb9T0VKGY7wNJVYHNhHmQPBMvZCuiPl44W8cByoD78CYEfI l9b4YIGHW8x3Nsa2rZpiwNLHpnNSEbQdX7Y4YqPyopUfF7JwPO7dS6MYjaMlH3zZLaDx 9bhA== Received: by 10.52.70.13 with SMTP id i13mr19525054vdu.80.1355746026766; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:07:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.182.135 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:06:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> <50CB5748.2060905@stevecrocker.com> <023e01cddb07$8a8f17e0$9fad47a0$@olddog.co.uk> <6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603C0AC@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:06:46 -0500 Message-ID: To: "Wang,Weiming" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn7dXfKOYD02DgoEOa1WFqm9UPVTz7eXE1dI+KGdgFdOz67T2rq0bjdgl5Ocl3xSVOO/drN Cc: Joel Halpern , forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review issue 1: necessity of reserved fields X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:07:08 -0000 On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Wang,Weiming wrote: > In order to follow discussions and my document update work later accordingly, I'v renamed the >message name and will follow it till resolved. Good idea Weiming (my email reader missed some of the threaded messages). So this is more for Adrian (Sorry if this sounds too basic, but i think context is important). Just illustrating on what Joel said: To prefix: This is not a protocol or encoding issue rather an efficiency issue. ForCES uses either TLVs or ILVs to encode the data. TLVs use 16 bit T/L encoding whereas ILVs use 32 bit I/L where the I also serves as part of the path. Say I had a naive component definition of struct {id=1, uchar; id =2, uint32} a) then such a struct can be encoded as a list of ILVs: { {I=1, L=1, V ={uchar}}, //requires 3B pad. {I=2, L=4, V ={uint32}}} // no pad required in such a case you will pad the V of the first ILV with 3 more bytes to align to 32 bit. You will have spent a total of 16B to ship those 5B. b) encode that as TLV. The cost of sending is dominated by the V of the TLV and you are sending 5B padding for alignment is _at the end_ of that struct that costs you an extra 3B. So a total of 8B. More wire byte efficient - so you just saved yourself half the bytes. Looks good except implementation experience says it is less efficient from accessing at a processing level on the FE. (evident on a small 32b-MIPS FE home router where access is in 4B and accessing the uint32 would require two fetches; you could use "packing" rules on ARM/MIPS and everything is accessed in 1B boundaries). For our simple struct, the solution is to re-arrange those fields so the 32 bit comes first in the component definition; in such a case you still have the 3B pad at the end but now the 32b field is efficiently accessible. So the model definition of the struct plays a role and awareness at such level when designing the LFB model is useful. It could get worse with a mix and match of 16 bit, 8 bit, 64b and variable strings etc. Yes, this is _not_ a protocol issue but a practical one nonetheless, so if the model definition can save the efficiency, it benefits to do so. to conclude: In the LFBlib model, wherever you see the "reserved" fields it is to deal with such issues. The reserved fields also provide a nice illustration on what bits can be used in later extensions without affecting the wire format. cheers, jamal >For ease of collecting information, I'v also included a Jamal's response inside. > > thanks, > Weiming > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joel Halpern > To: joel@stevecrocker.com ; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: forces@ietf.org ; draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:29 AM > Subject: [SPAM] Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib > > > 5810 has no padding inside the fullsata. > Joel > > Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [adrian@olddog.co.uk] > Received: Saturday, 15 Dec 2012, 4:03pm > To: 'Joel' [joel@stevecrocker.com] > CC: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org [draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org]; forces@ietf.org [forces@ietf.org] > Subject: RE: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib > > > Hi, > > I guess I should go and read 5810, but why do that when I can simply ask you the > question? :-) > > I'm confused by your answer, Joel. > > My question was not whether 5810 is unambiguous, but about whether it takes care > of padding and packing. > > That is, does 5810 pad single byte field up to multi-byte boundaries, or does > the next data field run on immediately after the single byte? > > If the former, I don't see how this reserved field helps or is needed. If not > then I wonder if the problem isn't in the protocol encoding rather than in the > LFB (of course, fixing the protocol encoding now might be a bit tough if we want > to retain b/w compatibility!) > > A > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joel [mailto:joel@stevecrocker.com] >> Sent: 14 December 2012 16:44 >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk >> Cc: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org; forces@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib >> >> With regard to attribute packing and reserved fields: >> >> On 12/14/2012 11:30 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> > Surely the rules in RFC 5810 take care of all packing and padding that is >> > necessary? >> >> In one sense, the answer is absolutely. The rules in 5810 produce a >> clear format, and one that can be generated, shipped, received, and >> processed. However, in laying out those rules we did not worry at all >> about the efficiency of such processing. >> Jamal has pointed out that adding the reserved fields makes the >> processing significantly more efficient. >> >> The question I am still of two minds on (but was willing to include in >> the spec), is whether that is a sufficient reason to add the noisy >> reserved fields to the definitions. >> >> Yours, >> Joel > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jamal Hadi Salim > Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:30 AM > Subject: Re: ID Tracker State Update Notice: > To: IETF Secretariat > Cc: forces-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib@tools.ietf.org > > > Excellent review Adrian - and you made my job as shepherd easier by posting > on the list (I dont have to go chase the authors ;-> I see they picked > it up already). > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM, IETF Secretariat > wrote: >> >> In 4.4 in IPv4PrefixTableInfo, what is this all about... >> >> >> Reserved >> Reserved for future use >> uchar >> >> >> Actually, I see several similar (e.g. in VlanInputTableEntryType) >> >> If this is an extensible format (I thought it was) why do you have >> reserved fields? >> > > I believe this was my suggestion based on implementation experience of > these LFBs. > The idea is to ensure that everything is 32 bit aligned. The protocol requires > that we have 32 bit alignment and those specific things you are looking > at labelled as "reserved" have "holes" which will end up being padded to > meet that requirement (and so they can be properly parsed at the receiver). > I suggested they be labelled as "reserved" to make them visible. > > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces From hadi@mojatatu.com Mon Dec 17 05:54:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FF221F8AF9 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:54:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.965 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id huLx8dB8kKxG for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:54:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A9021F8AFA for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fw7so7162570vcb.31 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:54:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=bOH+3ZANgDs9pZDM4CFZfECZByYD6X/R3x00DhjyOFA=; b=Jri6DmI9xzb4bxtvIxda9WPe0dgiheOw4lKQajHW82HUzXFKLwP6aNDvwRZ2WTUi2t SsAoAX89UT7ft91T7sO7smPIE6hkghs+1BkkjGEjkYVDx4rOw/gn5yc7fASmA+NOtu76 +6w3fg/sd927wwZJGjGZhzYRpAGd9ksoNSHFsU30QGdwNN3U50YykKxB1I3J6ysXMFgT lr7dQLEcqgSX/vpG5bwpKSJAF+1FWw8Myn1LjooCdNJ7LDrcnB23Yi3JgFdWwybKJmDT 5dfyvVmRqddbanWREIv8YwdmrLaNcsxVEKe7PShm2vNA77S5bgKiJaJu1aFkPvyWLs9R 2iHA== Received: by 10.58.221.130 with SMTP id qe2mr24248398vec.14.1355752464223; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:54:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.182.135 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:54:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk> <50CB5748.2060905@stevecrocker.com> <023e01cddb07$8a8f17e0$9fad47a0$@olddog.co.uk> <6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603C0AC@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:54:04 -0500 Message-ID: To: "Wang,Weiming" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQleTK0kfD1QHmfS8eraANFQpDnzu0LPPSLYGE2zBQcnfRYNLmzNfgBqMZgo2c0YNd2HgmAM Cc: Joel Halpern , forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review issue 1: necessity of reserved fields X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:54:25 -0000 Sorry, didnt complete my explanation, addendum below: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: [..] > Say I had a naive component definition of struct {id=1, uchar; id =2, uint32} [..] > For our simple struct, the solution is to re-arrange those fields so > the 32 bit comes first in the component definition; in such a case you > still have the 3B pad at the end but now the 32b field is efficiently > accessible. i.e above suggests the model should define struct as: struct {id=1, uint32; id =2, uchar} We will have a 3B pad at the end for a TLV or ILV. So you could define it in the XML as: struct {id=1, uint32; id =2, uchar, id 3 uchar resv0, id=4 int16 resv1} Or we could also keep the same constructs as before and redefine as: struct {id=1, uchar; id=2(optional) uchar resv0, id=2(optional) int16 resv1, id 2= uint32} But now by defining things as optional appearing, you cant use a TLV to send the struct and youve lost the efficiency you went looking for. cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Tue Dec 18 03:16:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD62321F880C for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:16:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.965 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vRoOgOqeePnT for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f45.google.com (mail-vb0-f45.google.com [209.85.212.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F53921F8807 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p1so642605vbi.18 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:15:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=JbU2XU1RA9TWKdNkvQfpx9hxQ5hnXlHWHU5m4PIIc/8=; b=hUC8aMw3i7Qr+v+gsqqH3pitqYV3bkVAOLFfvtDnWvQJtrrdbuUddcFjnxY5YX+ugq jOYLRi8MJrb4y6cNfQdxH6Cn5iO14rem4bAe8LaF9CM2UJCpAFgv1gfIWdUcE86u3s6U AbtUvSmmu8r7SLhzHaN5rZ5KthvjU8JqkZ+Eg9PZF9/ZIxu2FMLI/J/0ZPfGoK6/t/WC y44ad3xEXbjfK3OIq2RW/SdNdqqohuvQIpEnijPgoZyEtylMmDXqotUSbeuWplV1tJkc ZQDrqlU8/AU4VZD3IC7hmIUeAMh7Sc3sLsSinpqOBZqEqIxiL12rSwAM/GYM/8eUG8C6 FOpA== Received: by 10.52.99.106 with SMTP id ep10mr2078961vdb.53.1355829359517; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:15:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.182.135 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:15:39 -0800 (PST) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:15:39 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDAMt2dsKTxjldaEWG3LFJq2U/DuGMbjKGe1mo1yzeojk94WdNxMcj9O429utOqpbiZYnn Subject: [forces] item #7 Network virtualization X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:16:01 -0000 Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow time of the year (I am told by some people who are interested in the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year). What it is ----------- a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE} b) multi-tenancy Ability to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp. Why it is needed ----------------- We need at least a minimal informational review to see how well ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space in SDN where ForCES fits. It is likely no changes are needed other than support for item #4 (XEM interface). Please respond whether you: a) are interested in doing the work b) will review the work c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG d) do not think we should do this work cheers, jamal From sdena@upatras.gr Tue Dec 18 03:25:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEC521F87B2 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:25:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KvFf9Dy3eOvH for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:25:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.upatras.gr (nic.upatras.gr [150.140.129.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD8A21F8653 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:25:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (nic.upatras.gr [127.0.0.1]) by nic.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C0327589C; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:25:48 +0200 (EET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at upatras.gr Received: from nic.upatras.gr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nic.upatras.gr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j-Bv4c3Vv0z7; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:25:48 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail.upatras.gr (patreas.upatras.gr [150.140.129.29]) by nic.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:25:48 +0200 (EET) Received: from [150.140.187.134] (GLAFKOS.wcl.ee.upatras.gr [150.140.187.134]) by mail.upatras.gr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F585593DC1; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:25:46 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <50D052BB.1090704@upatras.gr> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:25:47 +0200 From: Spyros Denazis Organization: University of Patras User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #7 Network virtualization X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:25:50 -0000 Hello Jamal, All, We are definitely interested in this item. We will support options a), b) and c) Best regards Spyros Denazis Electrical & Computer Engineering Dept University of Patras On 18/12/2012 1:15 μμ, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow time > of the year (I am told by some people who are interested in > the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year). > > What it is > ----------- > a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE} > b) multi-tenancy > Ability to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and > virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp. > > > Why it is needed > ----------------- > We need at least a minimal informational review to see how well > ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space in SDN where > ForCES fits. > > It is likely no changes are needed other than support for item #4 > (XEM interface). > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From hadi@mojatatu.com Tue Dec 18 04:08:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0E921F8A05 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.966 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cQ6+Y7kCYSib for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f45.google.com (mail-vb0-f45.google.com [209.85.212.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E790721F8932 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p1so702398vbi.18 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=rsi6psnH4SwsmMgWAdwQ3gFOYI6ziht2bvmuGgBdH+A=; b=fhFFCM9Cx8Vd+jooR+0DduYXNo3CHMnhcUBSgfbVIM7zVB0qr2vAEQgagnE255KZVX Bz3Gv39sj/9OUirB9a70AZVdmHdsiSZJ1FuWfKpIAf7ppn9fqFxufPW2g7b2Rno5KuAo aLn0e2clsN0bc60V8gMOhFZuKXxb7UYXTFH1eJNa8Q+gwFiOOHvyFyBe3tbtjvSZOtHz 3Izo22NqbwXr05v3JtuNzwsPoTvXbuA5kzuP4jUtZK4oG7vARclWYxSdojnRRw1gGoMT WS8yrlyhJrf4lvJ77a2pP4CrqlEffQ5SwsLL71szD54s+xqrECtacjOLydAQW8OYDmqW 5Wqw== Received: by 10.52.16.229 with SMTP id j5mr2127260vdd.111.1355832486180; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.182.135 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:07:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:07:46 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmmIxNwYeEGqx/Mx/oUd/gFO3ryxAPYQI4iTfT2LStqV2wABM03uqOMDKAkDuEwOww+1ZHo Subject: Re: [forces] item #7 Network virtualization X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:08:07 -0000 chair hat off. Of absolute interest to us (#a-#c) cheers, jamal On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow time > of the year (I am told by some people who are interested in > the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year). > > What it is > ----------- > a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE} > b) multi-tenancy > Ability to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and > virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp. > > > Why it is needed > ----------------- > We need at least a minimal informational review to see how well > ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space in SDN where > ForCES fits. > > It is likely no changes are needed other than support for item #4 > (XEM interface). > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Tue Dec 18 04:08:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB9C21F84C2 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JC0DM5kksZzD for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from snt0-omc2-s24.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc2-s24.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.99]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0549E21F8A09 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from SNT132-W20 ([65.55.90.71]) by snt0-omc2-s24.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:08:21 -0800 X-EIP: [/JiMQHLwN91tXIo1fsIw1MOl+6/O+s+s] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c2e7fcac-8329-404a-83ba-7338bbee6427_" From: WM Wang To: , Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:08:21 -0700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2012 12:08:21.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FA07FC0:01CDDD18] Subject: Re: [forces] item #7 Network virtualization X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:08:32 -0000 --_c2e7fcac-8329-404a-83ba-7338bbee6427_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jamal=2C My team is intrested in doing the work (a) =2C and b) and c) also. thanks=2C Weiming > From: hadi@mojatatu.com > Date: Tue=2C 18 Dec 2012 06:15:39 -0500 > To: forces@ietf.org > Subject: [forces] item #7 Network virtualization >=20 > Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow time > of the year (I am told by some people who are interested in > the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year). >=20 > What it is > ----------- > a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE} > b) multi-tenancy > Ability to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and > virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp. >=20 >=20 > Why it is needed > ----------------- > We need at least a minimal informational review to see how well > ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space in SDN where > ForCES fits. >=20 > It is likely no changes are needed other than support for item #4 > (XEM interface). >=20 > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work >=20 > cheers=2C > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces = --_c2e7fcac-8329-404a-83ba-7338bbee6427_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jamal=2C

My team is in= trested in doing the work (a) =2C and b) and c) also.

thanks=2C
W= eiming

> From:=3B hadi@=3Bmojatatu.com
> Date:=3B Tue=2C= 18 Dec 2012 06:=3B15:=3B39 -0500
> To:=3B forces@=3Bietf.or= g
> Subject:=3B [=3Bforces]=3B item #=3B7 Network virtualiza= tion
>
> Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow ti= me
> of the year (=3BI am told by some people who are interested in> the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year)=3B.>
> What it is
> -----------
> a)=3B Virtualization {=3B= NE/FE/CE}=3B
> b)=3B multi-tenancy
> Ability to have virtualiz= ed NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and
> virtualized CEs interconn= ected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp.
>
>
> Why it is needed> -----------------
> We need at least a minimal informational review t= o see how well
> ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space= in SDN where
> ForCES fits.
>
> It is likely no changes are need= ed other than support for item #=3B4
> (=3BXEM interface)=3B.>
> Please respond whether you:=3B
> a)=3B are interested in= doing the work
> b)=3B will review the work
> c)=3B find the w= ork interesting and it should be done in the WG
> d)=3B do not think = we should do this work
>
> cheers=2C
> jamal
> _______________= ________________________________
> forces mailing list
> forces@= =3Bietf.org
> https:=3B//www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces
=
= --_c2e7fcac-8329-404a-83ba-7338bbee6427_-- From ashwani.kumar.a.mehra@ericsson.com Tue Dec 18 04:10:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BEE21F89F6 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:10:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5qvsi-I1zieW for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B1521F8932 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:10:14 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f736d0000010de-54-50d05d25db3b Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 34.00.04318.52D50D05; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:10:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from 4NZN7R1.egi.ericsson.com (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.91) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.279.1; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:10:12 +0100 Message-ID: <50D05D21.10702@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:40:09 +0530 From: Ashwani Mehra Organization: Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000202090302070002040505" X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja5q7IUAg2kdChYP38xms7i9dQ+b A5PHkiU/mTy23VrLGsAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJWx59VZloL/khXPd+9hbGB8KNLFyMkhIWAi MaVvFguELSZx4d56ti5GLg4hgZOMEtvffGeBcLYwStz4vIEVpIpXQFNix5QGMJtFQFXiYfNt IJuDg03AQuLSoxyQsJCAjsTS+5OYQGx+AVOJh72zwEpEBcIkpu9kh5giKHFy5hOwvSICGhLd revA4swCwhIL58xkA7GFgW5r/36CBWJkgMSy1UuZQWxOgUCJJxeeskDUh0n0vtzODFGjL3Gs oYNpAqPQLCQrZiEpg7BtJS7MuQ4Vl5fY/nYOVFxX4sL/KSjiCxjZVjGy5yZm5qSXm29iBAb8 wS2/DXYwbrovdohRmoNFSZw33PVCgJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQbGw5wf5KXj Yt2NnKy/7vxY8yLP8MPy/d9FGqbvDq3wEpQ4xf9u2rV43YNTLe4nv2yVfKs0lfv5PZtCxbvb 5FIaO52qv0utm9/34HNis4SP+kOm6Xrru5ayCJksjttjFXrSTnu+x5rqBb/3s7CembG0JSfH ptDlUb9zVsXSE/POscg6WqV+j/qixFKckWioxVxUnAgAuZ0bTkYCAAA= Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #7 Network virtualization X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ashwani.kumar.a.mehra@ericsson.com List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:10:15 -0000 --------------000202090302070002040505 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jamal, Would be quite interested - a,b,c. Regards Ashwani On 12/18/2012 04:45 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow time > of the year (I am told by some people who are interested in > the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year). > > What it is > ----------- > a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE} > b) multi-tenancy > Ability to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and > virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp. > > > Why it is needed > ----------------- > We need at least a minimal informational review to see how well > ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space in SDN where > ForCES fits. > > It is likely no changes are needed other than support for item #4 > (XEM interface). > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces --------------000202090302070002040505 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jamal,

Would be quite interested - a,b,c.

Regards
Ashwani
On 12/18/2012 04:45 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow time
of the year (I am told by some people who are interested in
the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year).

What it is
-----------
a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE}
b) multi-tenancy
Ability to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and
virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp.


Why it is needed
-----------------
We need at least a minimal informational review to see how well
ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space in SDN where
ForCES fits.

It is likely no changes are needed other than support for item #4
(XEM interface).

Please respond whether you:
a) are interested in doing the work
b) will review the work
c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG
d) do not think we should do this work

cheers,
jamal
_______________________________________________
forces mailing list
forces@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces


--------------000202090302070002040505-- From ehalep@ece.upatras.gr Tue Dec 18 04:51:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92EC221F8A2F for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:51:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_47=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6i5pkWMVHtRv for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:51:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate.ece.upatras.gr (mailgate1.ece.upatras.gr [150.140.189.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B034C21F8A0A for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:51:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from EhalepXPS (150.140.254.210) by mailgate1 (Axigen) with ESMTPA id 1E9739; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:06:17 +0200 From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" To: "'Wang,Weiming'" , "'Jamal Hadi Salim'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:51:38 +0200 Message-ID: <00b701cddd1e$6d948620$48bd9260$@upatras.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac3Y4Qsn1iuSGAP1SW6OcSCQ96taTwEN3Owg Content-Language: el Subject: Re: [forces] item #6 CE-CE interface X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:51:45 -0000 Greetings to the list, Sorry for the late response on item #6. While this item is interesting, we cannot be certain that we will be able to fully support a). But we certainly review the work and we think that it fits in the ForCES wg. Regards, Evangelos Haleplidis. > -----Original Message----- > From: forces-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Wang,Weiming > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:09 AM > To: Jamal Hadi Salim; forces@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [forces] item #6 CE-CE interface > > Hi Jamal, > > After discussions in my team, we decide to join in the work, so is a), > b), c) to me. > > thanks, > Weiming > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:53 AM > Subject: Re: [forces] item #6 CE-CE interface > > > > Not speaking as chair: > > This is of interest to us. And we will do #a-#c. > > > > cheers, > > jamal > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim > wrote: > >> What it is > >> ---------- > >> The Fr interface which is currently outside the charter. > >> Essentially the CE East-west interface. > >> > >> Why this is needed: > >> ------------------- > >> While ForCES explicitly calls out that the Fr interface is up to the > >> implementation, anyone building an HA infrastructure today ends up > >> implementing this interface. > >> Experience has shown ForCES could be used for the Fr interface. > >> The model could be used to define the controllable components and > >> the protocol seems sufficient from basic implementation experience. > >> > >> All this is outside the charter. > >> > >> Please respond whether you: > >> a) are interested in doing the work > >> b) will review the work > >> c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > >> d) do not think we should do this work > >> > >> cheers, > >> jamal > > _______________________________________________ > > forces mailing list > > forces@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces From joel@stevecrocker.com Tue Dec 18 06:00:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762AF21F8A09 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:00:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.113 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.356, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AgEOrphH3WTk for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:00:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E7821F8897 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:00:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from dummy.name; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:03:09 +0000 Message-ID: <50D076D5.70002@stevecrocker.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:59:49 -0500 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #7 Network virtualization X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:00:02 -0000 This looks interesting. I doubt my tea will have resources to work on this, but I do support the WG working on it, and will try to review the work if it goes forward. (i.e. c, and maybe b.) Yours, Joel On 12/18/2012 6:15 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow time > of the year (I am told by some people who are interested in > the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year). > > What it is > ----------- > a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE} > b) multi-tenancy > Ability to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and > virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp. > > > Why it is needed > ----------------- > We need at least a minimal informational review to see how well > ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space in SDN where > ForCES fits. > > It is likely no changes are needed other than support for item #4 > (XEM interface). > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From vumip1@gmail.com Tue Dec 18 12:31:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F291021F87D1 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:31:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UpKWXz9apF3W for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:31:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55BC21F85DA for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w12so971715lag.12 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:31:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xVo7p+IHwHhkq/G57ZG7eE8c/OM8Gp/mrg0bUrjBoAc=; b=Q8TpIqJDV/6cGhGFztAUCfM+bYpF4uXFiNVCXjBfdl/L37NjCv+5S5mvBuW+CQNsI6 mTorkhoUUgLwqAKvafIHS1nolVXgMHXiRjSRc+tyF2n1sK4+RbZPu5jJqGDork/a+1Sa zbd7PEz3ygqGv4edLfwRqGWdewUmw1MxMRCAyzai50+mx/DtsM0CMIGTYGteYnYvnDyw A/L3l0uohWYCdcOAV1xT8YZBkJ+hs/gXxQOkIdwjRM4ZoZ/nxG6BQ4XqUWsa+QP5GWcC lEGl3Mey+7JfR/PEn3QX91ONKTF8xE69B/wvAOWOuS6T8t2ZEdSFrs4UJDuWgrx292Jc Y9JA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.124.111 with SMTP id mh15mr3069268lab.20.1355862684261; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:31:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.36.161 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:31:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:31:24 -0500 Message-ID: From: "B.Khasnabish@ieee.org" To: Jamal Hadi Salim Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042f954ea8de4f04d12661bb Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #7 Network virtualization X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:31:27 -0000 --f46d042f954ea8de4f04d12661bb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes, Jamal, interested and support it. Plan to bring in contribution and review the work . Thanks. Best. Bhumip On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > Sorry took me longer to write this one up - its the slow time > of the year (I am told by some people who are interested in > the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year). > > What it is > ----------- > a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE} > b) multi-tenancy > Ability to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and > virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp. > > > Why it is needed > ----------------- > We need at least a minimal informational review to see how well > ForCES fits in this environment - since this is a space in SDN where > ForCES fits. > > It is likely no changes are needed other than support for item #4 > (XEM interface). > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > --f46d042f954ea8de4f04d12661bb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, Jamal, interested and support it.
=A0
Plan to bring in contribution and review the work=A0. Thanks.
=A0
Best.
=A0
Bhumip


=A0
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Jamal Hadi Sali= m <hadi@mojatatu.com> wrote:
Sorry took me longer to write this on= e up - its the slow time
of the year (I am told by some people who are i= nterested in
the last subject that they are gone for the rest of this year).

What= it is
-----------
a) Virtualization {NE/FE/CE}
b) multi-tenancyAbility to have virtualized NEs each constituting virtualized FEs and
virtualized CEs interconnected with virtualized TMLs on the Fp.


= Why it is needed
-----------------
We need at least a minimal informa= tional review to see how well
ForCES fits in this environment - since th= is is a space in SDN where
ForCES fits.

It is likely no changes are needed other than support f= or item #4
(XEM interface).

Please respond whether you:
a) are= interested in doing the work
b) will review the work
c) find the wor= k interesting and it should be done in the WG
d) do not think we should do this work

cheers,
jamal
_________= ______________________________________
forces mailing list
forces@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/forces



=A0 --f46d042f954ea8de4f04d12661bb-- From vumip1@gmail.com Tue Dec 18 12:36:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2ABB21E8045 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DPNQdifoQkeJ for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com [209.85.217.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E6421F85EF for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c1so1106032lbg.18 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SqQauws9XNEmBAG/5AtMWRODhhVX2ZpZ14A7VVAvPJ0=; b=ZBRu+cwIkZU02tMXe+9Xq0WCArbuVyfHJSCA+v8qzIMd+PYcoaNOpmaEt1MvFwLPMk 6PZn1ZIBxtFH3GAm6K3l4B+L9Z6jao9nMbeuHUFL9KmdcI0zm7iM9h7rvOUUwC6IppUK Moby+03ACEcDlDbuW7v8liU2LezEaH3wDiVWU2i/u+hSYuc4+hLcHoP4LA3NuL0s+hzx raKVfiSnxgBPA0vharD2LNVfjfTd1rNyYKSqE+xu8DVAyd8QxVdgTgW+VTzI/LkI3+mV ECmQ21NyBV9fAf5J/gxja+pG8grCcQ303ekmWPFnL7eB5r4DWoNx253KtYlIlRFiTW4a jsVw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.83.7 with SMTP id m7mr1456704lby.15.1355862970510; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.36.161 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:36:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:36:10 -0500 Message-ID: From: "B.Khasnabish@ieee.org" To: Jamal Hadi Salim Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9d717bcb8ae0c04d12672ed Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #1 ForCES Model Extension X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:36:12 -0000 --14dae9d717bcb8ae0c04d12672ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes, Jamal, interested and support it. Plan to bring in contributions and review the work . Thanks. Best. Bhumip On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > This was presented at the meeting. > Refer to: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-forces-2.pdf > and draft-haleplidis-forces-model-extension-01 > > What it is > ---------- > There are a few things missing from the current model grammar. > A sample space includes: > 1) Complex metadata expression > 2) Optional default values for data types > > Why it is needed: > ----------------------- > Completeness of the Modelling language. > > Please respond that you > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > --14dae9d717bcb8ae0c04d12672ed Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, Jamal, interested and support it.
=A0
Plan to bring in contribu= tions and review the work . Thanks.
=A0
Best.
=A0
Bhumip
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jamal Hadi Sali= m <hadi@mojatatu.com> wrote:
This was presented at the meeting.Refer to:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides= /slides-85-forces-2.pdf
and draft-haleplidis-forces-model-extension-01

What it is
-------= ---
There are a few things missing from the current model grammar.
A = sample space includes:
1) Complex metadata expression
2) Optional def= ault values for data types

Why it is needed:
-----------------------
Completeness of the Mod= elling language.

Please respond that you
a) are interested in doi= ng the work
b) will review the work
c) find the work interesting and = it should be done in the WG
d) do not think we should do this work

cheers,
jamal
_________= ______________________________________
forces mailing list
forces@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailma= n/listinfo/forces


=A0 --14dae9d717bcb8ae0c04d12672ed-- From vumip1@gmail.com Tue Dec 18 12:37:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689D021F85E1 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:37:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4frWI5NRN5lF for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:37:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546C421F85AF for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:37:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id p5so947803lag.5 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:37:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VaRF6vmvOGjywJTEboy6fU5leKb74zqbmy0UEI5e/Og=; b=Su1f2cqeCVVaI4SQ3n1mAL+qDOQMNbsN7CXxTCV9TumRWSLGhbQvuS1N7V+j4ovY7c NoU7vSssyEyCX1Kxs7qg6e2WMYeaMbWHgOY8Y//vjSNCi1GcthCjR8xhEwLHZyNgN4w1 pSc+urpgzYPjWhsqpY/myksUHls3YcmV5GCMvQ0C3NCmrGmj2IOH07KVHKKO4678KQD6 1Iy/ZuohHg+Wf0qp04/hhtQokQ+p6A6TsCRtWdhtF42OhxfLWnnhTC/ZBn1BUd4M98gp M5btXycOt86jdVo/d87Mbw21RnJc1/Zkt/4q9mFRylcrH291lWgk/k5Bet2lXzYjEyoI 5ebQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.108.37 with SMTP id hh5mr3061584lab.52.1355863039073; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:37:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.36.161 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:37:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:37:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: "B.Khasnabish@ieee.org" To: Jamal Hadi Salim Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54ee10acedf5504d1267647 Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] item #6 CE-CE interface X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:37:21 -0000 --bcaec54ee10acedf5504d1267647 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes, Jamal, interested and support it. Plan to bring in contributions and review the work . Thanks. Best. Bhumip On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > What it is > ---------- > The Fr interface which is currently outside the charter. > Essentially the CE East-west interface. > > Why this is needed: > ------------------- > While ForCES explicitly calls out that the Fr interface is up to the > implementation, anyone building an HA infrastructure today ends up > implementing this interface. > Experience has shown ForCES could be used for the Fr interface. > The model could be used to define the controllable components and > the protocol seems sufficient from basic implementation experience. > > All this is outside the charter. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > --bcaec54ee10acedf5504d1267647 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, Jamal, interested and support it.
=A0
Plan to bring in contribu= tions and review the work . Thanks.
=A0
Best.
=A0
Bhumip

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Jamal Hadi Sali= m <hadi@mojatatu.com> wrote:
What it is
----------
The Fr in= terface which is currently outside the charter.
Essentially the CE East-= west interface.

Why this is needed:
-------------------
While ForCES explicitly c= alls out that the Fr interface is up to the
implementation, anyone build= ing an HA infrastructure today ends up
implementing this interface.
Experience has shown ForCES could be used for the Fr interface.
The mode= l could be used to define the controllable components and
the protocol s= eems sufficient from basic implementation experience.

All this is ou= tside the charter.

Please respond whether you:
a) are interested in doing the work
b= ) will review the work
c) find the work interesting and it should be don= e in the WG
d) do not think we should do this work

cheers,
jamal
_______________________________________________
forces mailing = list
forces@ietf.org
https:/= /www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces



=A0 --bcaec54ee10acedf5504d1267647-- From hadi@mojatatu.com Wed Dec 19 04:08:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE2C21F8A75 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:08:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.966 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VoOLjoEuU3Oh for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:08:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (mail-vc0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1731921F8A1F for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:08:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id f13so2182092vcb.32 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:08:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=DVkwmGSB3H5ZawQQs1ezDN4z7Z2yBUnDWhzmWQvHaq0=; b=NBFnOkFkWpFKwOUt1JpmXbSVsEmtcNitrVO7ChFS3luogCTrVwrTk4ZRD7QSy+6qGq rKINfXH2NqAxhlpjz8IQh3goTtr+MitZ9riQAwIuy5mnNjRsf2AX/RFitEEhhJQZFq41 IiWr3Us28GtALefGUJ3zcQ1VhsPdMngy27le9emj/8tro+y+JH1o283YRYe9edGAaRVV cfYjkkLQwjBXX6X8ejWUIrj98NE6BEh/yMFcHndOz3oh2qryngpJxqrh/T2x0lGTGFg9 nNdXlLaw6ojYL/xBPSS3B5KHZB6x4EuNJRM7AOQ9tHOVV2Z4GSIwyHuwu/cpeCYYGeHl HFfA== Received: by 10.58.134.14 with SMTP id pg14mr8630114veb.42.1355918902360; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:08:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.182.135 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:08:02 -0800 (PST) From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:08:02 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkHPB13+s/uGBuhAdWxi9HUt8RuF/3yhqy782Dq/vxn4nR5nMnPZjgI82leT5XfKcAheypw Subject: [forces] Item #8: Credential subsystem integration X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:08:23 -0000 [I am probably going to slow down on posting these given this is "slow time" of the year and a good number of people are not paying attention.] What it is ------------ When ForCES was first initiated, it was intended to work in an environment where a single organization would own the NE. Over the years, given the expressive power of the ForCES architecture, it has found use in a multi-application environment (possibly apps being from multi organizations) with those apps sharing the resources. Items #5(Northbound interface/Services definition) and #7(Network virtualization) discussed earlier have a fit with such a subsystem. ForCES PL uses security services provided by the ForCES TML. The TML provides security services such as endpoint authentication service, message authentication service, and confidentiality service. Additionally, the LFB components can be described to have world (to all applications) access control list in the form of read/write permissions. The above are insufficient for a multi-application, multi-organization environment. Why this is needed: -------------------- ForCES at the moment lacks the definition to allow for multiple organizations and/or multiple applications to work in the same environment. ForCES is already being used in a multi-application environment and a multi-organization environment is a natural fit. Please respond whether you: a) are interested in doing the work b) will review the work c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG d) do not think we should do this work cheers, jamal From hadi@mojatatu.com Wed Dec 19 04:37:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177DF21F8974 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:37:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.967 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.967 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NGZMagKZ8EBX for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:37:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C05D21F886B for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:37:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so2184015vbb.17 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:37:40 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=tLxA21pVw8fJjSUYG88vusn3lncqyUD8KrTKRdZLmDc=; b=hrkx+mOrzzIqwNh4ZObFkBThlZ9Y4CgTE2T/G5uN11EgSHOtvnSVyBiTazjTCHOjuC uctfSauJl3zVTIHnJlRnqAz88wc+egygiBujvsPmz6PllHUPaP7ifonFwD4IjNPcFel9 8ibFrqFUcDmZFYDKXVJXh81ANxNz4/7Lqa2xLav5s4KpbL70K/tpNbBj5fsTccOk7Xf9 bDIATmm0dtP95EnEF/zz+K5Ju4O0vC4e9ZUyfKNcV1RsHDZtP9IEQCe/ZQZdbHAeJ3fM qm+5YHJ9HJQQmp8D5t4SCBgQ+hZ5GMqVB6c7uAFSzngoQaBWgqpbgOnkBeztfIvlRiel ZcCw== Received: by 10.220.228.2 with SMTP id jc2mr8551413vcb.32.1355920660831; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:37:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.182.135 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:37:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jamal Hadi Salim Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:37:20 -0500 Message-ID: To: forces@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZGAadSJOPo3ytd7Sy+7v1Qwk/i27AMigsu/d7IZuWFUhQ98iQ3kqeJDE68ZSrc61jQtT0 Subject: Re: [forces] Item #8: Credential subsystem integration X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:37:42 -0000 Chair hat off: Yes, we are interested (and already pursuing this). cheers, jamal On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > [I am probably going to slow down on posting these given this is > "slow time" of the year and a good number of people are not paying attention.] > > What it is > ------------ > When ForCES was first initiated, it was intended to work in an environment > where a single organization would own the NE. Over the years, > given the expressive power of the ForCES architecture, it has found > use in a multi-application environment (possibly apps being from multi > organizations) with those apps sharing the resources. > Items #5(Northbound interface/Services definition) and > #7(Network virtualization) discussed earlier have a fit with such a subsystem. > > ForCES PL uses security services provided by the ForCES TML. The TML > provides security services such as endpoint authentication service, > message authentication service, and confidentiality service. > Additionally, the LFB components can be described to have world (to all > applications) access control list in the form of read/write permissions. > The above are insufficient for a multi-application, multi-organization > environment. > > Why this is needed: > -------------------- > ForCES at the moment lacks the definition to allow for multiple organizations > and/or multiple applications to work in the same environment. > ForCES is already being used in a multi-application environment and > a multi-organization environment is a natural fit. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal From joel@stevecrocker.com Wed Dec 19 07:23:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55B521F8505 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:23:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.296, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8gdT6APNBb4m for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:23:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E5121F84FB for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:23:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from dummy.name; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:26:43 +0000 Message-ID: <50D1DBE2.1040601@stevecrocker.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:23:14 -0500 From: Joel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jamal Hadi Salim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] Item #8: Credential subsystem integration X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:23:34 -0000 I am reluctant to undertake significant security architecture work, particularly since this seems ill-defined at this time. Yours, Joel On 12/19/2012 7:08 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > [I am probably going to slow down on posting these given this is > "slow time" of the year and a good number of people are not paying attention.] > > What it is > ------------ > When ForCES was first initiated, it was intended to work in an environment > where a single organization would own the NE. Over the years, > given the expressive power of the ForCES architecture, it has found > use in a multi-application environment (possibly apps being from multi > organizations) with those apps sharing the resources. > Items #5(Northbound interface/Services definition) and > #7(Network virtualization) discussed earlier have a fit with such a subsystem. > > ForCES PL uses security services provided by the ForCES TML. The TML > provides security services such as endpoint authentication service, > message authentication service, and confidentiality service. > Additionally, the LFB components can be described to have world (to all > applications) access control list in the form of read/write permissions. > The above are insufficient for a multi-application, multi-organization > environment. > > Why this is needed: > -------------------- > ForCES at the moment lacks the definition to allow for multiple organizations > and/or multiple applications to work in the same environment. > ForCES is already being used in a multi-application environment and > a multi-organization environment is a natural fit. > > Please respond whether you: > a) are interested in doing the work > b) will review the work > c) find the work interesting and it should be done in the WG > d) do not think we should do this work > > cheers, > jamal > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn Fri Dec 21 00:26:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E2821F8775 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:26:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.795 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.041, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id viK1weuxQp4O for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:26:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.zjgsu.edu.cn (ucmail.zjgsu.edu.cn [124.160.64.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B7CD21F86B4 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from WwmOfficeJG (unknown [10.1.10.172]) by mailportal (Coremail) with SMTP id rBCI85D7QEdNHdRQAAk9AA--.29481S2; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:26:54 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <068a01cddf54$a4b03270$ac0a010a@WwmOfficeJG> From: "Wang,Weiming" To: , References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk>, , <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk><50CDFE6A.7070503@stevecrocker.com> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:24:49 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-CM-TRANSID: rBCI85D7QEdNHdRQAAk9AA--.29481S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjDUn29KB7ZKAUJUUUUUYxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJ3UbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvj4RJUUUUUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: pzpzt03j6ptxvoo2ywlvxovvfxof0/ Cc: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review issue 2: On LAN speed definition and whetherusing stat counter type X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:26:57 -0000 SGkgQW5kcmlhbiBhbmQgb3RoZXJzLA0KDQpPbiB0aGUgc3RhdCBjb3VudGVycywgUkZDMTE1NSBk aWZpbmVzIGNvdXRlcnMgZm9yIE1JQiBieSBhIHRleHQgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24sIGFzOg0KDQozLjIu My4zLiAgQ291bnRlcg0KICAgVGhpcyBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi13aWRlIHR5cGUgcmVwcmVzZW50cyBh IG5vbi1uZWdhdGl2ZSBpbnRlZ2VyIHdoaWNoDQogICBtb25vdG9uaWNhbGx5IGluY3JlYXNlcyB1 bnRpbCBpdCByZWFjaGVzIGEgbWF4aW11bSB2YWx1ZSwgd2hlbiBpdA0KICAgd3JhcHMgYXJvdW5k IGFuZCBzdGFydHMgaW5jcmVhc2luZyBhZ2FpbiBmcm9tIHplcm8uICBUaGlzIG1lbW8NCiAgIHNw ZWNpZmllcyBhIG1heGltdW0gdmFsdWUgb2YgMl4zMi0xICg0Mjk0OTY3Mjk1IGRlY2ltYWwpIGZv ciBjb3VudGVycy4NCg0KV2hpbGUgWUFORyBtb2RlbCBkZWZpbmVzIHNvbWUgdHlwZXMgb2YgY291 bnRlcnMgbGlrZTogDQogICAgICAgKy0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tKy0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tKw0KICAgICAgICB8IFlBTkcgdHlwZSAgICAgICAgICAgICB8 IEVxdWl2YWxlbnQgU01JdjIgdHlwZSAobW9kdWxlKSB8DQogICAgICAgICstLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLSstLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLSsNCiAgICAgICAgfCBj b3VudGVyMzIgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCBDb3VudGVyMzIgKFNOTVB2Mi1TTUkpICAgICAgICAgfA0K ICAgICAgICB8IHplcm8tYmFzZWQtY291bnRlcjMyICB8IFplcm9CYXNlZENvdW50ZXIzMiAoUk1P TjItTUlCKSB8DQogICAgICAgIHwgY291bnRlcjY0ICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgQ291bnRlcjY0IChT Tk1QdjItU01JKSAgICAgICAgIHwNCiAgICAgICAgfCB6ZXJvLWJhc2VkLWNvdW50ZXI2NCAgfCBa ZXJvQmFzZWRDb3VudGVyNjQgKEhDTlVNLVRDKSAgfA0KDQpGcm9tIGFsbCB0aGVzZSBkZWZpbml0 aW9ucywgd2UgY2FuIHNlZSB0aGF0IGFsbCBhcmUgc3RpbGwgYmFzZWQgb24gYW4gaW50ZWdlciBv ZiAzMiBvciA2NC4gIEkganVzdCB0aGluayB3ZSBtaWdodCBvbmx5IG5lZWQgYSBkZXNjcmlwdGlv biBsaWtlIFJGQzExNTUgdG8gaW5kaWNhdGUgdGhhdCBhbGwgY29tcG9uZW50cyBmb3Igc3RhdGlz dGljIGNvdW50ZXJzIHB1cnBvc2Ugc2hvdWxkIG1vbm90b25pY2FsbHkgaW5jcmVhc2UgYW5kIHdy YXAgdGlsbCAuLi4uIEJ1dCB0byB1bmxpbWl0IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucywgSSBzdWdnZXN0IG5v dCBsaW1pdGluZyBjb3V0ZXJzIHRvIDMyYml0cyBvbmx5LiBJIGFsc28gdGVuZCBub3QgdG8gZGVm aW5lIGEgc3BlY2lmaWMgJ2NvdW50ZXInIGVsZW1lbnQgaW4gdGhlIEZvckNFUyBGRSBtb2RlbCAo YWN0dWFsbHkgaXQgaXMgaW5zdWZmaWNpZW50IHRvIGRlZmluZSBhIG5ldyBjb3VudGVyIHR5cGUg Zm9yIHN0YXQgcHVycG9zZSwgcmF0aGVyIHRvIGxldCBGRSBtb2RlbCBkZWZpbmUgYSBjb3VudGVy IG1pZ2h0IGJlIHJpZ2h0IGlmIHdlIGRvIG5lZWQgc3VjaCB0eXBlKS4NCg0KdGhhbmtzLA0KV2Vp bWluZw0KDQoNCj4+PiAgPj4gPiBMb29raW5nIGF0IHRoZSBzdGF0cyBJIHNlZSB0aGV5IHVzZSBz aW1wbGUgaW50ZWdlciB0eXBlcy4gIEluZGVlZCB5b3UNCj4+PiAgPj4gPiBkb24ndCBoYXZlIGF0 b21pYyB0eXBlcyBmb3IgY291bnRlcnMuIEJ1dCBJIGNhbid0IGZpbmQgYW55d2hlcmUgaW4gdGhl DQo+Pj4gID4+ID4gZG9jdW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0YWxrcyBhYm91dCB3aGF0IGhhcHBlbnMgd2hlbiBj b3VudGVycyB3cmFwIG9yIGhvdyB0bw0KPj4+ICA+PiA+IHJlY29yZCBhIGRpc2NvbnRpbnVpdHku DQo+Pj4gID4+DQo+Pj4gID4+IE1heWJlIGRlZmluaW5nIGEgc3BlY2lmaWMgYXRvbWljIGNvdW50 ZXIgd2l0aCBmdWxsIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb24NCj4+PiB3cmFwIGFuZA0KPj4+ICA+b3RoZXINCj4+ PiAgPj4gcHJvcGVydGllcyBpcyBhIHZlcnkgZ29vZCB0cmVhdG1lbnQuIExldHMgZm9sbG93IHRv IGRpc2N1c3MuIFRoYW5rcy4NCj4+PiAgPg0KPj4+ICA+QWdhaW4uIFN1Z2dlc3QgdG8gbG9vayBh dCB3aGF0IE1JQiBhbmQgWUFORyBtb2R1bGVzIGRvIGZvciB3cmFwcGluZw0KPj4+IGNvdW50ZXJz LA0KPj4+ICA+ZmFzdCBjb3VudGVycyAodGhhdCBuZWVkIDY0IGJpdHMpLCBhbmQgZGlzY29udGlu dWl0aWVzLg0KPj4+ICd1aW50NjQnIGlzIGEgYnVpbHQtaW4gYXRvbWljIHR5cGUgaW4gUkZDNTgx Mi4gIFRoZXJlIGFyZSBubyByYW5nZQ0KPj4+IHJlc3RyaWN0aW9ucw0KPj4+IGFuZCBzcGVjaWFs IGVudW1lcmF0ZWQgdmFsdWVzIGluIHRoZSBzdGF0aXN0aWMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdHlwZSwgc28g d2UNCj4+PiBoYXZuJ3QgZGVmaW5lZA0KPj4+IGEgbmV3IGF0b21pYyB0eXBlLg0KPj4+IEluZGVl ZCB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBwbGFjZSB0byBtZW50aW9uICdjb3VudGVyJyBpbiBjdXJyZW50IGxmYiBs aWIuIElmIHdlDQo+Pj4gdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBpcyBhbg0KPj4+IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLXNwZWNp ZmljIHByb2JsZW0sIGNhbiB3ZSBvbWl0IHRoaXMgZGVmaW5pdGlpb24/DQo+Pj4gQmVzdCByZWdh cmRzIQ0KPj4+IFlvdXJzLA0KPj4+IENodWFuaHVhbmcNCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IGZvcmNlcyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4g Zm9yY2VzQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8v Zm9yY2VzDQo+ From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Fri Dec 21 00:31:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B7F21F85A4 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:31:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.166 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a6lXL35nVAJi for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc2-s37.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s37.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.112]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A88721F858E for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP325 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s37.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:31:58 -0800 X-EIP: [YWr0N5U7hxPO9tVbcoBivFKcDEhc1DPt] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from WwmOfficeJG ([202.96.99.60]) by BLU0-SMTP325.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:31:57 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: , Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:29:48 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Dec 2012 08:31:57.0903 (UTC) FILETIME=[A3ECC5F0:01CDDF55] Cc: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review issue 2: On LAN speed definition and whetherusing stat counter type X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:32:00 -0000 SGkgQW5kcmlhbiBhbmQgb3RoZXJzLA0KDQpPbiB0aGUgc3RhdCBjb3VudGVycywgUkZDMTE1NSBk aWZpbmVzIGNvdXRlcnMgZm9yIE1JQiBieSBhIHRleHQgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24sIGFzOg0KDQozLjIu My4zLiAgQ291bnRlcg0KICAgVGhpcyBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi13aWRlIHR5cGUgcmVwcmVzZW50cyBh IG5vbi1uZWdhdGl2ZSBpbnRlZ2VyIHdoaWNoDQogICBtb25vdG9uaWNhbGx5IGluY3JlYXNlcyB1 bnRpbCBpdCByZWFjaGVzIGEgbWF4aW11bSB2YWx1ZSwgd2hlbiBpdA0KICAgd3JhcHMgYXJvdW5k IGFuZCBzdGFydHMgaW5jcmVhc2luZyBhZ2FpbiBmcm9tIHplcm8uICBUaGlzIG1lbW8NCiAgIHNw ZWNpZmllcyBhIG1heGltdW0gdmFsdWUgb2YgMl4zMi0xICg0Mjk0OTY3Mjk1IGRlY2ltYWwpIGZv ciBjb3VudGVycy4NCg0KV2hpbGUgWUFORyBtb2RlbCBkZWZpbmVzIHNvbWUgdHlwZXMgb2YgY291 bnRlcnMgbGlrZTogDQogICAgICAgKy0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tKy0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tKw0KICAgICAgICB8IFlBTkcgdHlwZSAgICAgICAgICAgICB8 IEVxdWl2YWxlbnQgU01JdjIgdHlwZSAobW9kdWxlKSB8DQogICAgICAgICstLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLSstLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLSsNCiAgICAgICAgfCBj b3VudGVyMzIgICAgICAgICAgICAgfCBDb3VudGVyMzIgKFNOTVB2Mi1TTUkpICAgICAgICAgfA0K ICAgICAgICB8IHplcm8tYmFzZWQtY291bnRlcjMyICB8IFplcm9CYXNlZENvdW50ZXIzMiAoUk1P TjItTUlCKSB8DQogICAgICAgIHwgY291bnRlcjY0ICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwgQ291bnRlcjY0IChT Tk1QdjItU01JKSAgICAgICAgIHwNCiAgICAgICAgfCB6ZXJvLWJhc2VkLWNvdW50ZXI2NCAgfCBa ZXJvQmFzZWRDb3VudGVyNjQgKEhDTlVNLVRDKSAgfA0KDQpGcm9tIGFsbCB0aGVzZSBkZWZpbml0 aW9ucywgd2UgY2FuIHNlZSB0aGF0IGFsbCBhcmUgc3RpbGwgYmFzZWQgb24gYW4gaW50ZWdlciBv ZiAzMiBvciA2NC4gIEkganVzdCB0aGluayB3ZSBtaWdodCBvbmx5IG5lZWQgYSBkZXNjcmlwdGlv biBsaWtlIFJGQzExNTUgdG8gaW5kaWNhdGUgdGhhdCBhbGwgY29tcG9uZW50cyBmb3Igc3RhdGlz dGljIGNvdW50ZXJzIHB1cnBvc2Ugc2hvdWxkIG1vbm90b25pY2FsbHkgaW5jcmVhc2UgYW5kIHdy YXAgdGlsbCAuLi4uIEJ1dCB0byB1bmxpbWl0IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucywgSSBzdWdnZXN0IG5v dCBsaW1pdGluZyBjb3V0ZXJzIHRvIDMyYml0cyBvbmx5LiBJIGFsc28gdGVuZCBub3QgdG8gZGVm aW5lIGEgc3BlY2lmaWMgJ2NvdW50ZXInIGVsZW1lbnQgaW4gdGhlIEZvckNFUyBGRSBtb2RlbCAo YWN0dWFsbHkgaXQgaXMgaW5zdWZmaWNpZW50IHRvIGRlZmluZSBhIG5ldyBjb3VudGVyIHR5cGUg Zm9yIHN0YXQgcHVycG9zZSwgcmF0aGVyIHRvIGxldCBGRSBtb2RlbCBkZWZpbmUgYSBjb3VudGVy IG1pZ2h0IGJlIHJpZ2h0IGlmIHdlIGRvIG5lZWQgc3VjaCB0eXBlKS4NCg0KdGhhbmtzLA0KV2Vp bWluZw0KDQoNCj4+PiAgPj4gPiBMb29raW5nIGF0IHRoZSBzdGF0cyBJIHNlZSB0aGV5IHVzZSBz aW1wbGUgaW50ZWdlciB0eXBlcy4gIEluZGVlZCB5b3UNCj4+PiAgPj4gPiBkb24ndCBoYXZlIGF0 b21pYyB0eXBlcyBmb3IgY291bnRlcnMuIEJ1dCBJIGNhbid0IGZpbmQgYW55d2hlcmUgaW4gdGhl DQo+Pj4gID4+ID4gZG9jdW1lbnQgdGhhdCB0YWxrcyBhYm91dCB3aGF0IGhhcHBlbnMgd2hlbiBj b3VudGVycyB3cmFwIG9yIGhvdyB0bw0KPj4+ICA+PiA+IHJlY29yZCBhIGRpc2NvbnRpbnVpdHku DQo+Pj4gID4+DQo+Pj4gID4+IE1heWJlIGRlZmluaW5nIGEgc3BlY2lmaWMgYXRvbWljIGNvdW50 ZXIgd2l0aCBmdWxsIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb24NCj4+PiB3cmFwIGFuZA0KPj4+ICA+b3RoZXINCj4+ PiAgPj4gcHJvcGVydGllcyBpcyBhIHZlcnkgZ29vZCB0cmVhdG1lbnQuIExldHMgZm9sbG93IHRv IGRpc2N1c3MuIFRoYW5rcy4NCj4+PiAgPg0KPj4+ICA+QWdhaW4uIFN1Z2dlc3QgdG8gbG9vayBh dCB3aGF0IE1JQiBhbmQgWUFORyBtb2R1bGVzIGRvIGZvciB3cmFwcGluZw0KPj4+IGNvdW50ZXJz LA0KPj4+ICA+ZmFzdCBjb3VudGVycyAodGhhdCBuZWVkIDY0IGJpdHMpLCBhbmQgZGlzY29udGlu dWl0aWVzLg0KPj4+ICd1aW50NjQnIGlzIGEgYnVpbHQtaW4gYXRvbWljIHR5cGUgaW4gUkZDNTgx Mi4gIFRoZXJlIGFyZSBubyByYW5nZQ0KPj4+IHJlc3RyaWN0aW9ucw0KPj4+IGFuZCBzcGVjaWFs IGVudW1lcmF0ZWQgdmFsdWVzIGluIHRoZSBzdGF0aXN0aWMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdHlwZSwgc28g d2UNCj4+PiBoYXZuJ3QgZGVmaW5lZA0KPj4+IGEgbmV3IGF0b21pYyB0eXBlLg0KPj4+IEluZGVl ZCB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBwbGFjZSB0byBtZW50aW9uICdjb3VudGVyJyBpbiBjdXJyZW50IGxmYiBs aWIuIElmIHdlDQo+Pj4gdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBpcyBhbg0KPj4+IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uLXNwZWNp ZmljIHByb2JsZW0sIGNhbiB3ZSBvbWl0IHRoaXMgZGVmaW5pdGlpb24/DQo+Pj4gQmVzdCByZWdh cmRzIQ0KPj4+IFlvdXJzLA0KPj4+IENodWFuaHVhbmcNCj4gDQog From ietfc@btconnect.com Fri Dec 21 06:35:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B5521F8628 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:35:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u+6-nUcWnP0s for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E9D21F8625 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:35:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail220-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.246) by TX2EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.9.40.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:35:14 +0000 Received: from mail220-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail220-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0AFBBC004E; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:35:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.249.213; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:AM2PRD0710HT003.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -29 X-BigFish: PS-29(z21cRz9371I542I1432Izz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL6d524h8275dhz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839h947hd24hf0ah1177h1179h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h304l1155h) Received: from mail220-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail220-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1356100512268384_4917; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS031.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.248]) by mail220-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36FB9B8005C; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from AM2PRD0710HT003.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.249.213) by TX2EHSMHS031.bigfish.com (10.9.99.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:35:11 +0000 Received: from DB3PRD0210HT004.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (157.56.253.69) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.255.165.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.245.2; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:35:08 +0000 Message-ID: <066001cddf88$1e0fa320$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: "Wang,Weiming" , , References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk>, , <010001cdda18$461bf500$d253df00$@olddog.co.uk><50CDFE6A.7070503@stevecrocker.com> <068a01cddf54$a4b03270$ac0a010a@WwmOfficeJG> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:17:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [157.56.253.69] X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com Cc: draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [forces] AD review issue 2: On LAN speed definition andwhetherusing stat counter type X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:35:16 -0000 Weimimg I am sure you know that RFC1155, which you cite below, is somewhat mature and that work on SMI defined further counters, as referenced by YANG. However, you may not be familiar with RFC4181 which gives guidance on how counters should and should not be used, taking into account discontinuities, so while the title of that RFC suggests that it is aimed at an arcane group of reviewers, yet it is probably the best description of what to do and not to do. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wang,Weiming" To: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 8:24 AM > Hi Andrian and others, > > On the stat counters, RFC1155 difines couters for MIB by a text description, as: > > 3.2.3.3. Counter > This application-wide type represents a non-negative integer which > monotonically increases until it reaches a maximum value, when it > wraps around and starts increasing again from zero. This memo > specifies a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal) for counters. > > While YANG model defines some types of counters like: > +-----------------------+--------------------------------+ > | YANG type | Equivalent SMIv2 type (module) | > +-----------------------+--------------------------------+ > | counter32 | Counter32 (SNMPv2-SMI) | > | zero-based-counter32 | ZeroBasedCounter32 (RMON2-MIB) | > | counter64 | Counter64 (SNMPv2-SMI) | > | zero-based-counter64 | ZeroBasedCounter64 (HCNUM-TC) | > > From all these definitions, we can see that all are still based on an integer of 32 or 64. I just think we might only need a description like RFC1155 to indicate that all components for statistic counters purpose should monotonically increase and wrap till .... But to unlimit implementations, I suggest not limiting couters to 32bits only. I also tend not to define a specific 'counter' element in the ForCES FE model (actually it is insufficient to define a new counter type for stat purpose, rather to let FE model define a counter might be right if we do need such type). > > thanks, > Weiming > > > >>> >> > Looking at the stats I see they use simple integer types. Indeed you > >>> >> > don't have atomic types for counters. But I can't find anywhere in the > >>> >> > document that talks about what happens when counters wrap or how to > >>> >> > record a discontinuity. > >>> >> > >>> >> Maybe defining a specific atomic counter with full definition on > >>> wrap and > >>> >other > >>> >> properties is a very good treatment. Lets follow to discuss. Thanks. > >>> > > >>> >Again. Suggest to look at what MIB and YANG modules do for wrapping > >>> counters, > >>> >fast counters (that need 64 bits), and discontinuities. > >>> 'uint64' is a built-in atomic type in RFC5812. There are no range > >>> restrictions > >>> and special enumerated values in the statistic information type, so we > >>> havn't defined > >>> a new atomic type. > >>> Indeed there is no place to mention 'counter' in current lfb lib. If we > >>> think this is an > >>> implementation-specific problem, can we omit this definitiion? > >>> Best regards! > >>> Yours, > >>> Chuanhuang > > > > _______________________________________________ > > forces mailing list > > forces@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > > > _______________________________________________ > forces mailing list > forces@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces > From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Fri Dec 21 21:47:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085AE21F86AB for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:47:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.032 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ei3P2p5vZCRz for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:47:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc1-s25.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s25.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2098D21F86A2 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:47:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP43 ([65.55.116.7]) by blu0-omc1-s25.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:47:51 -0800 X-EIP: [hzxp1srtkj4njxpUEPx+JEybdYkMygmE] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from WmwangHome ([125.120.87.158]) by BLU0-SMTP43.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 21:47:50 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: References: <20121211000655.1329.3970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><50C7499A.8030300@stevecrocker.com><077901cdd7ba$d0894b80$719be280$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:47:51 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2012 05:47:50.0644 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0EA0B40:01CDE007] Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-lfb-lib Subject: [forces] AD review issue 5: on FIB model structure description X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 05:47:54 -0000 SGksIA0KDQpPbiB0aGlzIGlzc3VlLCBJJ20gZ29pbmcgdG8gbW9kaWZ5IHRoZSB0ZXh0IGluIDUu MyBzZWN0aW9uIGJ5IGFkb3B0aW5nIHdvcmRzIHByb3Bvc2VkIGJ5IEFuZHJpYW46IA0KDQpUaGUg dGV4dCB1c2VkIHRvIGJlOg0KLS0tLS0tLS0NCjUuMy4gIElQIEZvcndhcmRpbmcgTEZCcw0KLi4u DQogICBBIHR5cGljYWwgSVAgdW5pY2FzdCBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIGpvYiBpcyB1c3VhbGx5IHJlYWxp emVkIGJ5IGxvb2tpbmcgdXANCiAgIHRoZSBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRhYmxlIHRv IGZpbmQgbmV4dCBob3AgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIGFuZA0KICAgdGhlbiBiYXNlZCBvbiB0aGUgbmV4 dCBob3AgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIGZvcndhcmRpbmcgcGFja2V0cyB0bw0KICAgc3BlY2lmaWMgcGh5 c2ljYWwgb3V0cHV0IHBvcnRzLiAgSXQgdXN1YWxseSB0YWtlcyB0d28gc3RlcHMgdG8gZG8gc28s DQogICBmaXJzdGx5IHRvIGxvb2sgdXAgYSBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRhYmxlIGJ5 IG1lYW5zIG9mIExvbmdlc3QNCiAgIFByZWZpeCBNYXRjaGluZyhMUE0pIHJ1bGUgdG8gZmluZCBh IG5leHQgaG9wIGluZGV4LCB0aGVuIHRvIHVzZSB0aGUNCiAgIGluZGV4IGFzIGEgc2VhcmNoIGtl eSB0byBsb29rIHVwIGEgbmV4dCBob3AgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdGFibGUgdG8gZmluZA0KICAgZW5v dWdoIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRvIHN1Ym1pdCBwYWNrZXRzIHRvIG91dHB1dCBwb3J0cy4gIFRoaXMg ZG9jdW1lbnQNCiAgIGFic3RyYWN0cyB0aGUgZm9yd2FyZGluZyBwcm9jZXNzZXMgbWFpbmx5IGJh c2VkIG9uIHRoZSB0d28gc3RlcHMNCiAgIG1vZGVsLiAgSG93ZXZlciwgdGhlcmUgYWN0dWFsbHkg ZXhpc3RzIG90aGVyIG1vZGVscywgbGlrZSBvbmUgd2hpY2gNCiAgIG1heSBvbmx5IGhhdmUgYSBm b3J3YXJkaW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGJhc2UgdGhhdCBoYXZlIGNvbmpvaW5lZCBuZXh0DQogICBo b3AgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdG9nZXRoZXIgd2l0aCBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLiAgSW4g dGhpcyBjYXNlLA0KICAgaWYgRm9yQ0VTIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgaXMgdG8gYmUgYXBwbGllZCwgc29t ZSB0cmFuc2xhdGlvbiB3b3JrIHdpbGwNCiAgIGhhdmUgdG8gYmUgZG9uZSBpbiB0aGUgRkUgdG8g dHJhbnNsYXRlIGF0dHJpYnV0ZXMgZGVmaW5lZCBieSB0aGlzDQogICBkb2N1bWVudCBpbnRvIGF0 dHJpYnV0ZXMgcmVsYXRlZCB0byB0aGUgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24uDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0K DQpUbyBtb2RpZnkgYWJvdmUgdGV4dCB0bzogDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo1LjMuICBJUCBGb3J3 YXJkaW5nIExGQnMNCi4uLg0KICAgQW4gSVAgdW5pY2FzdCBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIGpvYiBpcyB1c3Vh bGx5IHJlYWxpemVkIGJ5IGxvb2tpbmcgdXANCiAgIHRoZSBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9u IHRhYmxlIHRvIGZpbmQgbmV4dCBob3AgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIGFuZA0KICAgdGhlbiBiYXNlZCBv biB0aGUgbmV4dCBob3AgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIGZvcndhcmRpbmcgcGFja2V0cyB0bw0KICAgc3Bl Y2lmaWMgcGh5c2ljYWwgb3V0cHV0IHBvcnRzLiAgSXQgdXN1YWxseSB0YWtlcyB0d28gc3RlcHMg dG8gZG8gc28sDQogICBmaXJzdGx5IHRvIGxvb2sgdXAgYSBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9u IHRhYmxlIGJ5IG1lYW5zIG9mIExvbmdlc3QNCiAgIFByZWZpeCBNYXRjaGluZyhMUE0pIHJ1bGUg dG8gZmluZCBhIG5leHQgaG9wIGluZGV4LCB0aGVuIHRvIHVzZSB0aGUNCiAgIGluZGV4IGFzIGEg c2VhcmNoIGtleSB0byBsb29rIHVwIGEgbmV4dCBob3AgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdGFibGUgdG8gZmlu ZA0KICAgZW5vdWdoIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRvIHN1Ym1pdCBwYWNrZXRzIHRvIG91dHB1dCBwb3J0 cy4gIFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQNCiAgIGFic3RyYWN0cyB0aGUgZm9yd2FyZGluZyBwcm9jZXNzZXMg YmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIHR3byBzdGVwcw0KICAgbW9kZWwuIFdoZXJlYXMsIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQg aXMgYWdub3N0aWMgdG8gdGhlIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG1vZGVsIA0KICAgYW5kIGNhbiBiZSBh cHBsaWVkIGFjcm9zcyBhbGwgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIHdpdGggcmVjb2duaXRpb24gdGhhdCB0 aGUgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCBlbGVtZW50cyBkZXNjcmliZWQNCiAgIGluIHRoZSBMRkJzIG1pZ2h0IGJl IHJlYWxpc2VkIGluIGEgZGlmZmVyZW50IHdheSBpbiBhbiBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbiwgYnV0IHRo YXQgdGhlIGZ1bmN0aW9ucyBwZXJmb3JtZWQgd2lsbCBiZSBpZGVudGljYWwuDQotLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tDQoNClBscyBnaXZlIHJlc3BvbnNlIGlmIHlvdSd2IGFueSB0aG91Z2h0cy4NCg0KdGhhbmtz LA0KV2VpbWluZw0KDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTogIkphbWFs IEhhZGkgU2FsaW0iIDxoYWRpQG1vamF0YXR1LmNvbT4NCg0KPiBTbyBJIGFtIG5vdCBkaXNhZ3Jl ZWluZyBvbiB0aGUgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmFsIHZpZXcgdGhhdCB0aGUgbW9kZWwN Cj4gdGFrZXMuIEkgd2FzIGhvcGluZyB0aGF0IHRoZSBleHRyYSBpbmZvLCBhcyBkZXNjcmliZWQs IHdvdWxkIHJlZHVjZSBjb25mdXNpb24NCj4gZm9yIGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGVyOyBpZiB0aGF0IGdv YWwgaXMgbm90IGFjaGlldmVkIHRoZW4gaXQgbm90IHVzZWZ1bCB0byBoYXZlLg0KPiANCj4gY2hl ZXJzLA0KPiBqYW1hbA0KPiANCj4gT24gVHVlLCBEZWMgMTEsIDIwMTIgYXQgMTE6MTYgQU0sIEFk cmlhbiBGYXJyZWwgPGFkcmlhbkBvbGRkb2cuY28udWs+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4gWWVzLCBJIGFncmVl IHdpdGggSm9lbCdzIHZpZXcgb24gdGhpcy4gVGhlIHJlYXNvbiB3aHkgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCBhcmNo aXRlY3R1cmVzDQo+PiBzcGxpdCB0aGluZ3MgaW50byBzZXBhcmF0ZSBmdW5jdGlvbmFsIGNvbXBv bmVudHMgaXMgdG8gYWxsb3cgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24NCj4+IGZyZWVkb20gaW4gd2hpY2ggb25l IGNhbiBpbXBsZW1lbnQgdGhlIGFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBvciBjb21iaW5lIHRoZSBibG9ja3MgaW4N Cj4+IGRpZmZlcmVudCB3YXlzLg0KPj4NCj4+IEFkcmlhbg0KPj4NCj4+PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFs IE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPj4+IEZyb206IGZvcmNlcy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86 Zm9yY2VzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZg0KPj4+IEpvZWwNCj4+Pg0KPj4+ IEFjdHVhbGx5LCBJIGRvIG5vIHR0aGluayB0aGF0IHRoZSBpc3N1ZSBpcyBjb21tb24gdnMgdW5j b21tb24uICBJZiB3ZQ0KPj4+IGhhZCB0byBtYWtlIGEgY2FsbCBvbiB0aGF0IGJhc2lzLCBpdCB3 b3VsZCBpbmRpY2F0ZSBhIHByb2JsZW0gaW4gdGhlDQo+Pj4gc3RydWN0dXJlLg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4g UmF0aGVyLCB0aGUgaXNzdWUgaXMgZWFzZSBvZiBtYXBwaW5nLiBHaXZlbiBhIG1vZGVsIHdoaWNo IHJlcHJlc2VudCBGSUINCj4+PiBhbmQgTmV4dC1Ib3AgYXMgc2VwYXJhdGUgcGllY2VzLCBpdCBp cyB2ZXJ5IGVhc3kgZm9yIGhhcmR3YXJlIHdoaWNoDQo+Pj4gY29tYmluZXMgdGhlbSB0byBleHBy ZXNzIHRoZSBhZGphY2VuY3kgcmVzdHJpY3Rpb24gYW5kIHRvIG1hcCB0aGUgdHdvDQo+Pj4gc2V0 cyBvZiBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0byBvbmUgaGFyZHdhcmUgY29uc3RydWN0LiAgQ29udmVyc2VseSwg aWYgd2UNCj4+PiByZXByZXNlbnRlZCB0aGVtIGFzIG9uZSBMRkIsIHRoZXJlIHdvdWxkIGJlIG8g d2F5IHRvIHJlcHJlc2VudCB0aGUNCj4+PiBwb3NzaWJpbGl0eSBpbiBzb21lIGRldmljZXMgdGhh dCB0aGVyZSBjb3VsZCBiZSBMRkJzIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIHR3bw0KPj4+IGZ1bmN0aW9ucy4gIEFu ZCB0aGUgbWFwcGluZyBpbnRvIHNlcGFyYXRlIGxvZ2ljLCBmcm9tIGEgc2luZ2xlIExGQg0KPj4+ IGluc3RhbmNlLCB3b3VsZCBiZSBtdWNoIGhhcmRlci4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+IFlvdXJzLA0KPj4+IEpv ZWwgTS4gSGFscGVybg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4gT24gMTIvMTEvMjAxMiA4OjM3IEFNLCBKYW1hbCBIYWRp IFNhbGltIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+ID4gU29ycnksIEkgbWVhbnQgZm9yIHRoaXMgdG8gZ28gdG8gdGhl IGxpc3QgYXMgd2VsbC4NCj4+PiA+IEkgc2hvdWxkIGNsYXJpZnkgb24gb25lIG9mIG15IGNvbW1l bnRzIGJlbG93Og0KPj4+ID4gV2hpbGUgdGhlIGNvbmpvaW5lZCBGSUIvTkggaXMgY29tbW9uIGl0 IGlzIG5vdCBhcyBjb21tb24gYXMNCj4+PiA+IGEgZGlzam9pbnQgbW9kZWwgd2hpY2ggaXMgd2hh dCBpcyBkZWZpbmVkIGhlcmUuIFNvICJvcHRpbWl6ZQ0KPj4+ID4gZm9yIHRoZSBjb21tb24iIGlz IHJlbGV2YW50IGluIHRoaXMgc2NvcGUuDQo+Pj4gPg0KPj4+ID4gY2hlZXJzLA0KPj4+ID4gamFt YWwNCj4+PiA+DQo+Pj4gPg0KPj4+ID4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLSBGb3J3YXJkZWQgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0t LS0tLS0tDQo+Pj4gPiBGcm9tOiBKYW1hbCBIYWRpIFNhbGltIDxoYWRpQG1vamF0YXR1LmNvbT4N Cj4+PiA+DQo+Pj4gPiBFeGNlbGxlbnQgcmV2aWV3IEFkcmlhbiAtIGFuZCB5b3UgbWFkZSBteSBq b2IgYXMgc2hlcGhlcmQgZWFzaWVyIGJ5IHBvc3RpbmcNCj4+PiA+IG9uIHRoZSBsaXN0IChJIGRv bnQgaGF2ZSB0byBnbyBjaGFzZSB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycyA7LT4gSSBzZWUgdGhleSBwaWNrZWQNCj4+ PiA+IGl0IHVwIGFscmVhZHkpLg0KPj4+ID4NCj4+PiA+IE9uIE1vbiwgRGVjIDEwLCAyMDEyIGF0 IDc6MDYgUE0sIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCj4+PiA+IDxpZXRmLXNlY3JldGFyaWF0LXJlcGx5 QGlldGYub3JnPiB3cm90ZToNCj4+PiA+Pg0KID4+PiA+PiBTZWN0aW9uIDUuMyBkaXNjdXNzZXMg dGhlIGFjdHVhbCBhbmQgcG90ZW50aWFsIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uDQo+Pj4gPj4gYXJjaGl0ZWN0 dXJlcyBhbmQgaW1wbGllcyB0aGF0IHNvbWUgYXJlIG1vcmUgc3VpdGVkIHRvIHRoaXMgbGlicmFy eSB0aGFuDQo+Pj4gPj4gb3RoZXJzLiBUaGF0IGJvdGhlcnMgbWU6IHRoaXMgd2hvbGUgcHJvamVj dCBpcyBzdXBwb3NlZCB0byBiZSBhYm91dA0KPj4+ID4+IGFic3RyYWN0aW9uIGFuZCB0aGUgYWJz dHJhY3Rpb24gaXMgc3VwcG9zZWQgdG8gc3VpdCBhbnkgKHJlYXNvbmFibGUpDQo+Pj4gPj4gaW1w bGVtZW50YXRpb24gbW9kZWwgc2luY2UgaXQgaXMgdGhlIGZ1bmN0aW9ucyBvZiBmb3J3YXJkaW5n IHRoYXQgYXJlDQo+Pj4gPj4gZGVzY3JpYmVkLCBub3QgdGhlIGNvbXBvbmVudHMgb2YgYW4gaW1w bGVtZW50YXRpb24uDQo+Pj4gPj4NCj4+PiA+PiBTbyBJIHRoaW5rIHRoZSBzZWN0aW9uIHNob3Vs ZCBub3QgbWFrZSAod2hhdCBJIHRoaW5rIGFyZSBkdWJpb3VzKQ0KPj4+ID4+IHN0YXRlbWVudHMg YWJvdXQgInR5cGljYWwiIGFuZCAidXN1YWwiIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucy4gSWYgaXQgaXMNCj4+ PiA+PiBuZWNlc3NhcnkgdG8gbWVudGlvbiBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMgKHdoaWNoIEkgZG9uJ3Qg dGhpbmsgaXQgaXMpIHlvdQ0KPj4+ID4+IHNob3VsZCBkbyBzbyBpbiBhIGxpZ2h0IHdheSBhbmQg anVzdCBub3RlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBsaWJyYXJ5IGlzIGFnbm9zdGljDQo+Pj4gPj4gdG8gdGhlIGlt cGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG1vZGVsIGFuZCBjYW4gYmUgYXBwbGllZCBhY3Jvc3MgYWxsDQo+Pj4gPj4g aW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIHdpdGggcmVjb2duaXRpb24gdGhhdCB0aGUgZnVuY3Rpb25hbCBlbGVt ZW50cyBkZXNjcmliZWQNCj4+PiA+PiBpbiB0aGUgTEZCcyBtaWdodCBiZSByZWFsaXNlZCBpbiBh IGRpZmZlcmVudCB3YXkgaW4gYW4gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24sDQo+Pj4gPj4gYnV0IHRoYXQgdGhl IGZ1bmN0aW9ucyBwZXJmb3JtZWQgd2lsbCBiZSBpZGVudGljYWwuDQo+Pj4gPj4NCj4+PiA+DQo+ Pj4gPiBTbyBoZXJlaW4gbGllcyB0aGUgZGlsZW1hIGluIGdlbmVyYWwgaW4gbW9kZWxsaW5nIHZz IGV4aXN0aW5nDQo+PiBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMuDQo+Pj4gPiBTb21lIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9u IGFwcHJvYWNoIHdpbGwgYmUgInBlbmFsaXplZCIgcmVsYXRpdmUgdG8gb3RoZXJzLiBKb2VsDQo+ Pj4gPiBhbmQgSSBvZnRlbiBkaXNhZ3JlZSBvbiB0aGlzIG1vc3RseTsgaSB0aGluayBoZSAgaXMg aW4gdGhlIHNhbWUgY2FtcCBhcyB5b3UNCj4+PiA+IHRoYXQgdGhlIG1vZGVsIHNob3VsZG50IHdv cnJ5IGFib3V0IHRoZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMuIFRoZSBlbmdpbmVlcg0KPj4+ID4gaW4gbWUg cmVmdXNlZCB0byBsZXQgaXQgZ28uDQo+Pj4gPiBJIGluc2lzdGVkIG9uIGNhbGxpbmcgdGhpcyBw YXJ0IG91dCBiZWNhdXNlIHRob3NlIHR3byBhcHByb2FjaGVzIGFyZSB2ZXJ5DQo+Pj4gPiBjb21t b24gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zLiBBbmQgdGhlIG1vZGVsIGZhdm9ycyBvbmUgb3ZlciB0aGUgb3Ro ZXIgaS5lDQo+Pj4gPiBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMgd2l0aCBhIGNvbmpvaW5lZCBGSUIvTkggdGFi bGVzIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0byBkbyBtb3JlIG9mDQo+Pj4gPiBhIHRyYW5zbGF0aW9uLg0KPj4+ID4g SSBhZ3JlZSBvbiB0aGUgImxpZ2h0IiBjYWxsIG9mIHRoaXMgaXNzdWUgLSBidXQgbm90IHN1cmUg aG93IG11Y2ggbW9yZSB5b3UNCj4+PiA+IGNhbiB0b25lIGl0IGRvd24uDQo+Pj4gPg0KPj4+ID4g Y2hlZXJzLA0KPj4+ID4gamFtYWwNCg== From wmwang2001@hotmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:18:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: forces@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD60C21F8ADA for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.508, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3CyZ7jSBx-XV for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc4-s23.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s23.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.162]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D713421F8ABA for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP68 ([65.55.111.135]) by blu0-omc4-s23.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:04 -0800 X-EIP: [+njroPyxVwHVnuHH0pPUuwOgHTXeDW89] X-Originating-Email: [wmwang2001@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from WmwangHome ([125.120.87.158]) by BLU0-SMTP68.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:03 -0800 From: "Wang,Weiming" To: , References: <062401cdd733$baace790$3006b6b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:18:04 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2012 06:18:03.0229 (UTC) FILETIME=[194C90D0:01CDE00C] Cc: forces@ietf.org Subject: [forces] AD review issue 6: on the IPv4PrefixTable X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:18:05 -0000 SGkgQWRyaWFuLA0KDQpUaGUgSVB2NFByZWZpeFRhYmxlIGlzIGRlZmluZWQgYXMgYW4gYXJyYXku IFRoZSAgZW50cnkgb2YgdGhlIHRhYmxlIGlzIGp1c3QgdGhlIGVudHJ5IG9mIHRoZSBhcnJheS4g QWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIEZFIG1vZGVsIChSRkM1ODEyKSwgdGhlIG9yZGVyIG9mIGVudHJpZXMgYXJy YXlzIGRvZXMgbm90IHRha2Ugb3RoZXIgaW1wbGljaXQgbWVhbmluZyB0aGFuIGFzIGFuIGFycmF5 IGVudHJ5LiANCg0KSSd2IGV2ZXIgdGhvdWdodCBpZiB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGxldCB0aGUgZW50cnkg YWN0IChiZSBkZWZpbmVkKSBhcyBhIHNlYXJjaCBrZXkgc28gYXMgdG8gZmFzdGx5IGxvb2sgdXAg dGhlIHRhYmxlLiBUbyBkbyBzbywgd2UgdGhlbiBuZWVkIHRvIGRlZmluZSB0aGUgZW50cnkgYXMg YSBzcGVjaWZpYyBlbGVtZW50IG9mIHRoZSB0YWJsZSAocmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gYSBkZWZhdWx0IGVu dHJ5KSBhbmQgdGhlbiBkZWZpbmUgdGhlIGVsZW1lbnQgYXMgdGhlICdzZWFyY2gga2V5JyAuICBU aGlzIHNlZW1zIG5vdCBhIGdvb2QgdHJhZGVvZmYuICBJbiB0aGUgZW5kLCBJIGp1c3QgZ2F2ZSB1 cCB0aGUgdGhvdWdodC4gIA0KDQpQcm9wZXJ0aWVzIG9mIGVudHJ5IG9mIGFuIGFycmF5IGlzIGRl ZmluZWQgYnkgUkZDIDU4MTIoNC44LjIpLiBJbmZvIGxpa2UgZW50cnljb3VudCwgZW50cnkgc3Vi c2NyaXB0IHNwYWNlIGlzIGF2YWlsYWJsZS4NCg0KdGhhbmtzLA0KV2VpbWluZw0KIA0KLS0tLS0g T3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSANCkZyb206ICJBZHJpYW4gRmFycmVsIiA8YWRyaWFuQG9s ZGRvZy5jby51az4NCj4gU2VjdGlvbiA1LjMuMS4yDQo+IA0KPiBJc24ndCB0aGUgb3JkZXIgb2Yg ZW50cmllcyBpbiBJUHY0UHJlZml4VGFibGUgc3VwcG9zZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSBhbg0KPiBpbXBsaWNp dCBtZWFuaW5nPyBNYXliZSB0aGlzIGhhcyB0byBiZSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBzZWN0aW9u IG9yDQo+IG1heWJlIGl0IGJlbG9uZ3Mgd2l0aCB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvZiBJUHY0UHJlZml4 VGFibGVUeXBlLg0KPiANCj4gT2J2aW91c2x5IHRoZSBzYW1lIGlzc3VlIGFwcGxpZXMgdG8gSVB2 Ni4NCj4gDQog