Re: TML events: what events we need?

I suspect these ought to be in the FE Protocol Object, rather than 
the FE Object, but I am not relgiious about that.

However, we need to be very careful about what TML related FE 
Protocol level events we define / expect to have work.  If the TML is 
not working, then the FE will not be able to deliver notifications 
reliably to the CE.  Also, the TML can be expected to have its own 
failure detection mechanisms, and the PL / LFB ought not duplicate 
those mechanisms.

With those caveats, if you can define a set of general FE Protocol 
LFB attributes and events about the TML, that would be 
helpful.  (Personally, I would first like to see a clear TML semantic 
service definition.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 12:29 AM 8/17/2006, Wang,Weiming wrote:
>Yes, the events should also be included in the FEO definition, but 
>the FEO will not be able to be notified by the TML events if the 
>PL/TML interface does not include it.
>
>You asked for input of FEO definitions and I replied to input 
>something. What I can think of the most for completing the FEO 
>definition is, it should include things refects TML state.
>
>Now I'm not sure if TML error (or failure) event should also be 
>reflected in the FEO and let CE know the events.
>
>Thanks,
>Weiming
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
>
> > But those events would not be part of the semantic definition of the
> > PL / TML interface.  They would, if they exist, be part of the FE
> > Protocol object definition.
> > I have no conceptual problem with the FE Protocol object including
> > information about the TML state, and including events that reflect
> > changes in that state.  That is consistent with the way the FE model
> > works.  And those objects really ought to be defined along with the
> > rest of the FE Protocol object in the FE protocol document.
> > But that is not the topic we have been discussing.  We have been
> > discussing the definition of the PL / TML interface. As described by
> > the TML Service Primitives document.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > At 07:25 PM 8/16/2006, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> > >There may be some misunderstanding.
> > > > Again, the FE side TML implementation is a local matter.
> > > > The reason I concentrated on the CE side is that an FE is not even
> > > > expected to have logic to process ForCES notifications.  It generates
> > > > such notifications, but does not receive them.  I would think it
> > >We havn't said that an FE should process ForCES (protocol)
> > >notifications. We never mentioned an FE would reveive any event from
> > >outer part. I'm not sure where comes such thought.
> > >
> > >We just mentioned that an FE TML is part of FE, therefore, events
> > >generated by a FE TML to FE PL is a process inside an FE.  Some
> > >events at FE side may trigger some FEO events and make report to CE.
> > >Where at the CE side, when CE TML report an event to CE PL, the CE
> > >PL may just process it by itself. There is no requirement and also
> > >it is not allowed that the CE PL reports the event to FE (we never
> > >mentioned we should do like this).
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Weiming
> > >