Re: Hybrid TMLs

This may be just a language usage issue.

Mandatory TML means that every implementation of ForCES will have 
support for the protocol exchange defined by the mandatory TML (which 
I expect will be TCP + DCCP.)

Yours,
Joel

At 03:05 PM 10/3/2006, Wang,Weiming wrote:
>Allen,
>
>In the discussion, when we mention a mandatory TML, we actually mean 
>a mandatory type of TML, i.e., only one TML transmission means (say 
>TCP+DCCP) is allowed.
>
>I also incline to keeping one TML instance for simplixity.
>
>thanks,
>weiming
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Deleganes, Ellen M" <[email protected]>
>
>Weiming,
>
>I'm apparently confused by your mail. I don't think the intention is to
>be restrictive to allow only one TML instance, but to find a way to
>ensure that a CE is only required to support one TML instance. A CE may
>support multiple if desired, but that should not be a requirement.
>
>My concern is that if a CE is required to support multiple TML instances
>that will slow down deployment because it adds to the complexity of the
>implementation.
>
>Regards,
>Ellen
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wang,Weiming
>Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:25 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Hybrid TMLs
>
>Joel,
>
>Only a mandatory TML makes all our thoughts to separate PL from TML much
>less meaning.  It's even not better and more restricted than to mandate
>that "all TMLs be same in one NE" to solve the question. But this is
>still quite restricted for ForCES deployments.
>
>I incline the scheme to keep one TML instance in any case, while making
>a statement in the TML service primitves that a TML with Hybrid TML
>media is allowed under condition that the hybrid TML implmentation is
>responsible to provide services specified by the TML service primitves
>document to PL uniformly.
>
>While at the same time, it may be of help for future use to assign an
>TML id for an opened TML instance, even we only allow one TML instance
>for one CE/FE.
>
>thanks,
>Weiming
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]
>
> > This is one of the reasons why there needs to be a mandatory to
>implement TML.
> > I am inclined to observe that
> > Given the existence of at least one common TML, it is permitted for
> > the CE to simply use a TML that is common across all FEs.
> > A CE which has support for multiple TMLs, and which can manage the
> > selection and management issues of using such (including, if used,
> > multicast) is free to choose to use multiple TMLs to speak to
> > different FEs in the NE.
> >
> > I.e. a single TML works, but we have no reason to prohibit multiple
> > TMLs, if someone builds a CE that can do it.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel Halpern
> >
> > At 11:23 AM 10/3/2006, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >When I'm considering the TML service primitive, I come upon a
> > >question on the TML instances.
> > >
> > >Considering a case with one CE and multiple FEs,  it is possible FEs
> > >may use different TML media for ForCES protocol transportation. This
> > >actually implies the CE have to support more than one TML instances,
> > >or the CE TML must be an all in one TML, with different TML media
> > >supported by one TML layer.
> > >
> > >There are several questions here:
> > >1. Shall our charter support different TML media in one ForCES NE?
> > >2. If yes, then what scheme shall we adopt, multiple TML instances
> > >or allowing a hybrid TML? Or, do we have other alternatives? I just
> > >can see questions for either of the schemes.
> > >
> > >Thanks a lot for any thoughts.
> > >
> > >Weiming