1 / 8

TML Service Primitives - Progress since last meeting

TML Service Primitives - Progress since last meeting. <draft-ietf-forces-tmlsp-01.txt> Weiming Wang, wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn Jamal Hadi Salim, hadi@znyx.com Alex Audu, alex.audu@garlandnetworx.com IETF 68 th Meeting Mar. 20, 2007, Prague Czech.

skule
Télécharger la présentation

TML Service Primitives - Progress since last meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TML Service Primitives- Progress since last meeting <draft-ietf-forces-tmlsp-01.txt> Weiming Wang, wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn Jamal Hadi Salim, hadi@znyx.com Alex Audu, alex.audu@garlandnetworx.com IETF 68th Meeting Mar. 20, 2007, Prague Czech

  2. an updated 01 version has been submitted since last meeting • the contents was in advance introduced at 67th meeting • refer to http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/forces-1/ • key changes from 00 version: • removed all XML descriptions for TML • rewrote most of the TML events part • modified the SP format and the parameters.

  3. Key discussions since then • SP should be a semantic description or an API? • Status: solved • the answer is TML SP should be a semantic one rather than a API for implementation • 01 version actually has already included the thought • need to change in the next version？ • remove the sentence “It is feasible that the implementers of TML and PL may be from different organizations.” • the following sentence may be kept ? • “ … one PL portable to various TMLs actually means the PL must provide various interface drivers for different TMLs, while keeping the PL kernel the same…” because the related sentence “…PL portable to various TMLs” is still kept in the protocol document

  4. Key discussions • TML event • How TML event should be notified to PL? • status: solved • answer: the document should not specify how, and it should depend upon implementations. Definitions in the document should also not limit various implementations. • what kind of TML event we need? • agreed: • TML error event • need more discussion • TML congestion alert • TML message arrive event

  5. Key discussions • What TML status or attributes in FE should be accessed by CE PL? • almost approved: TML error status • under discussion and debate • TML congestion alert • TML type

  6. Key discussions • How will TML status or attributes in FE be accessed by CE PL then? • represented as status or attributes of FEPO LFB? • represented as status or attributes of FEO LFB? • or by use of a specific TML LFB? • not solved yet

  7. Request • More comments • More implementations

  8. Thank You!

More Related