From ietf@meetecho.com  Thu Aug  1 02:07:34 2013
Return-Path: <ietf@meetecho.com>
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 63A3A21F9D4C for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  1 Aug 2013 02:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.750,  BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FGbeGkYt2sed for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  1 Aug 2013 02:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpdg6.aruba.it (smtpdg224.aruba.it [62.149.158.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561E721F9DC6 for <forces@ietf.org>; Thu,  1 Aug 2013 02:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dell-tcastaldi ([130.129.65.11]) by smtpcmd02.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id 7M6o1m00Z0EaGCq01M6oNY; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:06:48 +0200
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:06:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Meetecho Team <ietf@meetecho.com>
To: forces@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1721460571.31.1375348006616.JavaMail.tcastaldi@dell-tcastaldi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;  boundary="----=_Part_30_2005986393.1375348006613"
Subject: [forces] FORCES session recording available
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:07:34 -0000

------=_Part_30_2005986393.1375348006613
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear all,

the full recording (synchronized video, audio, slides and jabber room) of the 
FORCES WG session at IETF 87 is available at the following URL:
http://ietf87.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#FORCES

For the chair(s): please feel free to put the link to the recording in the minutes,
if you think this might be useful.

Cheers,
the Meetecho Team


This email has been automatically generated by The Meetecho Conferencing System


------=_Part_30_2005986393.1375348006613--

From vumip1@gmail.com  Sun Aug  4 12:39:01 2013
Return-Path: <vumip1@gmail.com>
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 3AEC021F9B58; Sun,  4 Aug 2013 12:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.74
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ht8TP94FTYd; Sun,  4 Aug 2013 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2823821F9C76; Sun,  4 Aug 2013 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w60so1891474wes.29 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 12:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=7ZkJIwVQXa6ivbPtbi3jcZ+XDLl9t/gSLzo5dBHwt8U=; b=b9/Z8VmODGN26Kx1wkdLXdRD/7Xm2XdL6Pvs4VJUie7SQmkNzzL6BQjrN7TlVd8XE+ rg7mHmkvZEMn4+914MmXONGWshga+jogSS/rilt2tEh0uzp+/A4naFj8YlNx0N78lxfG XZVB4SriU0iX209IRmtFNbK0zL6ZrHoDUdCFJEzvFvP45GFaGk/ewxjy0l5zeszYJ13n 16kvUy/z2GL+SPo01a9fv8lox4Nh3A134uFap/7Bvla8KQ9TAFOUjg7hfYDZcmfzmk4m tiBjTLHNdWTpb++WhfOsnV5qg3yN59hvkta+lG1SbJd8EQmWRbT60Tuw0Uv4WFwHLfpu z4oQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.89.38 with SMTP id bl6mr10606391wjb.21.1375645139295; Sun, 04 Aug 2013 12:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.60.81 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Aug 2013 12:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 15:38:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CANtnpwgRc00HbMDa3ZvM3neudZaASbAVkZMTAA_Xe7cif1SBTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "B.Khasnabish@ieee.org" <vumip1@gmail.com>
To: nvo3@ietf.org, forces@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d8a80dd61f204e3245789
Subject: [forces] use of ForCES as NVA to NVE protocol
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 19:39:01 -0000

--089e010d8a80dd61f204e3245789
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I have been thinking about exploring the use of
ForCES (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/forces/)
as NVO3 (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/) NVA to NVE protocol.

Recently, per discussion with Jamal (ForCES WG Chair),
it was confirmed that ForCES has all of the required attributes.
In addition, ForCES is an IETF control to data-path protocol.

PLS let me know if anyone is interested to work on this.

Many thanks in advance.
Best.
Bhumip

Bhumip Khasnabish
+1-781-752-8003 (mobile)
http://tinyurl.com/bhumip
http://tinyurl.com/bhumips-patents
                   __o
             _ `\ <, _
.......... ( =95 ) / ( =95 ) ......................

--089e010d8a80dd61f204e3245789
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif">Hi,</font></div><div><font siz=
e=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif"></font>=A0</div><div><font size=3D"4" face=
=3D"georgia,serif">I have been thinking about exploring the use of </font><=
/div><div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif">ForCES (<a href=3D"http:/=
/datatracker.ietf.org/wg/forces/">http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/forces/</a=
>)</font></div>
<div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif">as NVO3 (<a href=3D"http://dat=
atracker.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/">http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/</a>) NVA t=
o NVE protocol.</font></div><div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif"></=
font>=A0</div>
<div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif">Recently, per discussion with =
Jamal (ForCES WG Chair), </font></div><div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia=
,serif">it was confirmed that </font><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif=
">ForCES has all of the required attributes.</font></div>
<div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif">In addition, ForCES is an IETF=
 control to data-path protocol.</font></div><div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"g=
eorgia,serif"></font>=A0</div><div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif">=
PLS let me know if anyone is interested to work on this.</font></div>
<div><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif"></font>=A0</div><div><font siz=
e=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif">Many thanks in advance.<br></font></div><div=
><font size=3D"4" face=3D"georgia,serif">Best.<br>Bhumip</font></div>
<div>=A0</div><div>Bhumip Khasnabish</div>
<div><a href=3D"tel:%2B1-781-752-8003" target=3D"_blank" value=3D"+17817528=
003">+1-781-752-8003</a> (mobile) <br></div>
<div><a href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/bhumip" target=3D"_blank">http://tinyurl=
.com/bhumip</a></div>
<div><a href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/bhumips-patents" target=3D"_blank">http:=
//tinyurl.com/bhumips-patents</a> <br>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 __o<br>=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 _ `\ &lt;, _<b=
r>.......... ( =95 ) / ( =95 ) ......................</div>


--089e010d8a80dd61f204e3245789--

From ehalep@gmail.com  Mon Aug  5 05:39:27 2013
Return-Path: <ehalep@gmail.com>
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 CFB8C21F9F0A for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  5 Aug 2013 05:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.855
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zf4QFQkmNI81 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  5 Aug 2013 05:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-x233.google.com (mail-ee0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311FD21F9EF8 for <forces@ietf.org>; Mon,  5 Aug 2013 05:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c1so1616457eek.10 for <forces@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 05:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; bh=zhGpacBno++66FgL0N3MnUUOWmTT+PGpsltOAe5cGMU=; b=kzxHavrvEk5G/omNVuX0QB9IM05TkEAwC5zsixaOi4iQ2SYVqPSxfEuWZweWHe/Ds2 /FUBMpbEVMzf2LKceP966EFZ6xqTN2fQvy8wMMvXV8DrqlJkTY7DG/VxA5l061h2UkyI ghVOxOxz9UPFos+w7nbdid/lU+raxYaho06tgY59SEqqm1DMFHjzf7RTgaaQH79Pm9qK b98Sys7YSJX9mOREArSHR7Ttk1nve8bVrAbkSJCjfD5TwrhW9Pl27epQXWAw81pWa/iK GbDdIRsL6X7eCjtGNeGyz1kE9Oi9NwR5tkPlyY/XJC5b8B0Z3mvzhidI+IVUfdY/UKBr wihw==
X-Received: by 10.15.26.199 with SMTP id n47mr16984950eeu.88.1375706364132; Mon, 05 Aug 2013 05:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EhalepXPS (ppp141237073223.access.hol.gr. [141.237.73.223]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l42sm33014454eeo.14.2013.08.05.05.39.21 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Aug 2013 05:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" <ehalep@gmail.com>
To: "'Jamal Hadi Salim'" <hadi@mojatatu.com>, "'Adrian Farrel'" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
References: <02b001ce884a$a1585040$e408f0c0$@olddog.co.uk>	<CAAFAkD-iZ7nPmt=LPuP_fepgR5iGh0gGu9ex1Q5M11L37bhrmg@mail.gmail.com>	<000001ce896e$719cc370$54d64a50$@olddog.co.uk> <CAAFAkD_Qc9upLbip7isVjWxap1JDWsoiy=b5x9yERbFTb3Jcjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAFAkD_Qc9upLbip7isVjWxap1JDWsoiy=b5x9yERbFTb3Jcjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:39:18 +0300
Message-ID: <005401ce91d8$cebba310$6c32e930$@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: Ac6KmHJx5R54pnA/SJW+5vFxOFHMZwHPTrnw
Content-Language: el
Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-ceha.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:39:27 -0000

Thank you very much for the review.

> Section 5 needs to give clear and unambiguous instructions to the IANA.
> It seems that the text in Section 5 is currently a placeholder for the
correct text.

Looking on the IANA considerations I am not exactly sure how to address the
issue.

In my mind there are two possibilities.

1. Update the "Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class
Identifiers" https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/forces.xml by adding
one more column "LFB Version" after (or before) the LFB Class Name. Value of
1.0 for all existing LFBs and then add a new row for Version 1.1 after the
FE Protocol Object for version 1.1. 

2. Update the FEPO reference with [RFC5810] v1.0, [CEHA RFC] v.1.1.

I'm more inclined to go for the first one but that would require
restructuring of the IANA page. 
What should be the proper way forward?

> Section 3.1.1
>
> "CEID" is used without expansion. Although sometimes I find "CE ID" for
example in 3.1.2.

The CEID refers to a component in the FE Protocol Object. The CE ID refers
to the ID of the CE. There were a few discrepancies but have been fixed. The
CEID is now followed by the word "component" while the CE ID is not. Will
that be sufficient to remove the confusion?

The rest of the comments have been applied to the new version that will be
submitted as soon as we decide on the IANA considerations.

Regards,
Evangelos Haleplidis.


From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org  Thu Aug  8 15:54:19 2013
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 C796121F9AD1; Thu,  8 Aug 2013 15:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.228
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnrM6TJNWoQX; Thu,  8 Aug 2013 15:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FF721F9C10; Thu,  8 Aug 2013 15:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 5FB1CB1E003; Thu,  8 Aug 2013 15:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20130808224955.5FB1CB1E003@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu,  8 Aug 2013 15:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, forces@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [forces] RFC 6984 on Interoperability Report for Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:54:20 -0000

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 6984

        Title:      Interoperability Report for Forwarding and 
                    Control Element Separation (ForCES) 
        Author:     W. Wang, K. Ogawa,
                    E. Haleplidis, M. Gao,
                    J. Hadi Salim
        Status:     Informational
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       August 2013
        Mailbox:    wmwang@zjsu.edu.cn, 
                    ogawa.kentaro@lab.ntt.co.jp, 
                    ehalep@ece.upatras.gr,
                    gaoming@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn, 
                    hadi@mojatatu.com
        Pages:      29
        Characters: 70308
        Updates:    RFC 6053

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-forces-interop-09.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6984.txt

This document captures the results of the second Forwarding and
Control Element Separation (ForCES) interoperability test that took
place on February 24-25, 2011, in the Internet Technology Lab (ITL)
at Zhejiang Gongshang University, China.  The results of the first
ForCES interoperability test were reported in RFC 6053, and this
document updates RFC 6053 by providing further interoperability
results.

This document is a product of the Forwarding and Control Element Separation Working Group of the IETF.


INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search.php
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC



From adrian@olddog.co.uk  Sun Aug 18 10:32:01 2013
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 6E6AB11E8146 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 10:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vQYTFoCMz82 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 10:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6B711E8145 for <forces@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7IHVrFx017251;  Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:31:53 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7IHVp5Y017239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:31:52 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Haleplidis Evangelos'" <ehalep@gmail.com>, "'Jamal Hadi Salim'" <hadi@mojatatu.com>
References: <02b001ce884a$a1585040$e408f0c0$@olddog.co.uk>	<CAAFAkD-iZ7nPmt=LPuP_fepgR5iGh0gGu9ex1Q5M11L37bhrmg@mail.gmail.com>	<000001ce896e$719cc370$54d64a50$@olddog.co.uk> <CAAFAkD_Qc9upLbip7isVjWxap1JDWsoiy=b5x9yERbFTb3Jcjg@mail.gmail.com> <005401ce91d8$cebba310$6c32e930$@com>
In-Reply-To: <005401ce91d8$cebba310$6c32e930$@com>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:31:51 +0100
Message-ID: <043d01ce9c38$d4470990$7cd51cb0$@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: AQI6Q07702xNavMLAOpMwrNoOkw4/QDZ/dJYAYs+HZYBvSIYHwIFW19dmJKottA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: forces@ietf.org, draft-ietf-forces-ceha.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [forces] AD Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha
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 <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:32:01 -0000

Hello,

> > Section 5 needs to give clear and unambiguous instructions to the IANA.
> > It seems that the text in Section 5 is currently a placeholder for the
> > correct text.
> 
> Looking on the IANA considerations I am not exactly sure how to address the
> issue.
> 
> In my mind there are two possibilities.
> 
> 1. Update the "Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class
> Identifiers" https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/forces.xml by adding
> one more column "LFB Version" after (or before) the LFB Class Name. Value of
> 1.0 for all existing LFBs and then add a new row for Version 1.1 after the
> FE Protocol Object for version 1.1.
> 
> 2. Update the FEPO reference with [RFC5810] v1.0, [CEHA RFC] v.1.1.
> 
> I'm more inclined to go for the first one but that would require
> restructuring of the IANA page.
> What should be the proper way forward?

I was hoping that Jamal would know what needed to be done here.
I think you are saying that the LFB class identifier in the registry points to
XML present in the referenced document.
Thus, previously, when you saw LFB Class Identifier 2, you knew to look in RFC
5810 for the XML for the LFB.

Now you have confusion. Does LFB Class Identifier 2 refer to the FEPO LFB v1.0
in RFC 5810, the FEPO LFB v1.1 in this I-D, or both?

I can't answer that question for you!

However, since I see the version number embedded in the XML, I am relatively
sure that this document:
- updates RFC 5810 by replacing the XML
- should be referenced alongside RFC 5810 in the registry

Note that updating 5810 requires a little work to:
- mention it in the meta-data
- note it in the Introduction "This document updates foo by doing bah."
- explain it in a short paragraph in the introduction.

> > Section 3.1.1
> >
> > "CEID" is used without expansion. Although sometimes I find "CE ID" for
> example in 3.1.2.
> 
> The CEID refers to a component in the FE Protocol Object. The CE ID refers
> to the ID of the CE. There were a few discrepancies but have been fixed. The
> CEID is now followed by the word "component" while the CE ID is not. Will
> that be sufficient to remove the confusion?

It would be nice if the first usage of each expanded it into English.

Cheers,
Adrian


From hadi@mojatatu.com  Sat Aug 31 07:55:35 2013
Return-Path: <hadi@mojatatu.com>
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 B7C3011E8139 for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8rsaD3GNbvD for <forces@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (mail-ve0-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1227811E8119 for <forces@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id cy12so2154438veb.32 for <forces@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=klad16b2C717Yk+b1/cjgYleEazLWOOZrjSWYa05JWQ=; b=ce9zaobCWfaR5bFvHV7oas83fSQZbfi0ObVFSHiLCX5mNmqt91ugJwzzJkbZyLfZhS 6D4ensVesSGJR6eC+uTzl8TM8Jl3nE3SV/5vQo9igoNCYqa4Rfk3bjyS6b6/8lhx/kQL WjNGkPmI+0hneAUQPeoswz8JY7SNYS1yvTK1zwlWlfOhOuw2fUiAOOq7J57vY2k2XC8o K2pR1wzaF5KnNtjZuI2UIpncSth+czizJeaDYvAGCqIV1mnBEujkzu3t1hsYGpeWGUWE VX5LUiJKgrJvPgUk+MnFJhm8WPdUUAJavU33SQejTuL6vCBDOYMMEH3H1Dna9MfJOdSv EFig==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnM0CEOfYdsZaKyaTDCd9P1sZIHqA0m+/O5Rfy1opP6YKXSnG0pcE+lW70JqGDWCW3QsTkx
X-Received: by 10.52.117.44 with SMTP id kb12mr11022150vdb.8.1377960923435; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.23.33 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:55:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAFAkD-zzYSt5EVr-TspcKi3DAV4MzBX19h26NbZmbm_xSnADg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "forces@ietf.org" <forces@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "King, Daniel" <d.king@lancaster.ac.uk>
Subject: [forces] minutes uploaded
X-BeenThere: forces@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: ForCES WG mailing list <forces.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/forces>
List-Post: <mailto:forces@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces>, <mailto:forces-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:55:35 -0000

Seems DJ's email update to the WG on the minutes
was lost in that email collapse.
Much thanks to Daniel King for scribbing.

Please find the minutes at:
 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-forces

cheers,
jamal